Columbia  (Hnitierjgiftp 


LIBRARY 


PURCHASED  FROM 
THE 

WILLIAM  C.  SCHERMERHORN 
MEMORIAL  FUND 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE 

AND 

THE  CONFESSIONS 


OF 


THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH 

AS 

EMBODYING 

THE  EYANG3LTCAL  CONFESSION  OF 
THE  OnmSTIAN  OHDRCH 


BY 

THEODORE  E.  s6hMAUK 

AND 

C.  THEODORE  BENZE 

With  Translations  frora  the  Introductions  and  Writings  of 

THEQDOR   KOLDE 

Professor  In  Erlangen 


PHILADELPHIA 

GENERAL  COUNCIL  PUBLICATION  BOARD 

MCMXI 


Copyright  1911  by  the 

Board  of  Publication. of  tlie  General  Council  of  xhe 

Evangelical'  Lutheran  Chnrc;i  in 

■  Noxtlvy^ti^erica.- 


AII  rights  reserved . 


Zl-Z6'05^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tins  book  is  written  in  the  belief  tliat  the  one  ultimate 
authority  among  men  is  Trntli ;  and  that  all  derivative 
anthority — whether  confessional,  as  in  the  Faith;  or  institu- 
tional, as  in  the  joint  exercise  and  application  of  the  Faith 
in  the  Church;  or  historical,  as  in  tradition  of  Teaching  or 
Worship,  which  is  to  be  respected  highly  in  ordinary  relations 
for  various  reasons,* — stands  or  falls  as  it  harmonizes  or  fails 
to  harmonize  with  the  Truth. 

It,  further,  is  written  in  the  belief  that  the  one  great 
torch  of  the  Truth  is  genuine  and  original  Witness — a 
witness  which  arises  not  simply  from  the  intellect,  but  which 
grows  out  of  the  whole  heart — mind,  soul  and  spirit. 

Witness,  as  distinct  from  tradition  or  acceptance  by  im- 
itation, as  differing  from  argument  and  logical  conclusion, 
is  the  result  of  an  original  contact  in  experience  with  the 
Truth ;  not  perhaps  with  the  mere  bare  ])rinciple,  which 
is  often  an  elusive  abstraction,  but  with  the  Truth  as  clothed 
and  revealed  in  historical  fact. 

This  book  is  founded  on  the  assurance  that  God  Himself, 
Who  is  the  Truth,  has  not  left  Himself  without  Witness; 
that  this  Witness  is  genuine,  and  has  produced  conviction 
in  times  past  by  original  contact ;  that  God's  Witness  has 
been  of  Word  and  in  Person;  and  that  we  possess  this  Wit- 
ness in  Christ  and  in  the  Scriptures ;  that  therefore  the 
Word  of  God,  the  Scriptures,  is  a  self-legitimating  anthority, 
the  testimony  of  a  true  and  faithful  Higher  Life  brought 

'  The  historical  in  teaching  and  worship  claims  our  respect,  because  in- 
lividualism  leads  to  anarchy  ;  because  the  test  of  time  weeds  out  the  unworthy  ; 
»iecause  truth  itself  is  a  seed  or  leaven  needing  generations  to  unfold  and 
levelop ;  and,  because  God's  Spirit  is  active  in  the  historical  unfolding  and 
growth  of  the  Church 

(iii) 


iv  INTRODUCTION. 

down  and  borne  into  onr  lower  life ;  that  this  Testimony  of 
the  Higher  is  to  be  accepted  on  faith,  and  is  grasped  by  faith 
(as  is  always  the  case  also  with  our  hold  on  the  realities  of 
onr  common  every-day  life)  even  where  its  gronnds,  natnre 
and  scope  cannot  ]3e  technically  discerned,  or  wdiere  our 
lower  penetration  is  in  contradiction  to  it ;  that  the  Chnrch 
of  Christ  on  earth  is  not  the  Sonrce  of  divine  and  anthor- 
itative  Testimony,  bnt  that  God  alone,  in  His  Prophets  and 
in  Christ,  is  the  Sonrce ;  that  the  Church  is  the  uninspired 
Witness  of  those  who  have  come  into  contact  with  thfe 
Seriptnre  in  their  experience;  and  that  the  genuine  collec- 
tive witness  of  the  Church,  coming  forth  in  the  Confessions, 
is  Testimony  of  the  highest  value — of  higher  value  pre- 
sumptively than  any  individual  Witness;,  and  that  such 
collective  Witness  is  not  to  be  set  aside,  unless  it  can  be 
sliown  from  Scripture  or  from  undoubted  fact  that  God's 
people  together  have  made  a  mistake  in  their  faith — that 
their  Confession  is  erroneous. 

This  work  is  written  in  the  belief  that  the  one  native, 
I'eal,  unassailable,  as  w^ell  as  effective,  attitude  of  the  be- 
liever with  reference  to  Christ,  Christianity  and  the  Church, 
to-day,  no  less  than  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  is  that  of  a  Wit- 
ness. Xot  mere  belief,  still  less  legalized  or  traditional  au- 
thority," on  the  one  hand ;  nor  open-minded  doubt  or  critical 
investigation,  on  the  other,  wall  make  us  teachers  in  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  but  the  power  of  its  truth  will  shine  and 
testify  only  as  we  bear  witness.*  If  we  cannot  bear  wit- 
ness to  Christ  and  the  Church,  we  cannot,  in  any  other  way. 
teach  His  doctrine. 

The  weakness  of  Protestantism  to-day  is   its   failure   to 

-  Conformity  to  authority,  which  is  unaccompanied  by  inner  intellectua! 
conviction  and  whole-souled  sympathy,  is  as  harmful  as  critical  complaint  and 
constant  exception  to  or  wholesale  defiance  of  authority.  We  agree  with  v. 
C.  P.  Huizinga  (The  Function  of  Authority  in  Life)  that  "  if  codified  stand- 
ards become  rules  for  individual  life,  appearances  come  to  play  a  large  part 
in  life.  Legalism  has  a  bad  flavor,  especially  because  of  those  consistent,  law- 
abiding  moralists  and  religionists,  the  Pharisees."-- — Vich  Schiirer.  Gesch.  d. 
Jiidischen  Volkes  im   Zcitalter  Jesu  Cliristi    ("Life  under  the  Law"). 

'  In  this  attitude,  the  breath  of  life,  the  voice  of  freedom,  and  the  hand 
of  authority,  are  all  conserved. 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

recognize  the  necessity  and  the  valne  of  a  common  witness 
bv  the  connected  from  generation  to  generation  Church,  and, 
consequently,  also  the  necessity  of  using  and  maintaining  a 
common  Testimonial  authority,  or  Confessional  Doctrine. 
Religion  is  thought,  even  by  many  ministers,  to  be  a  matter 
of  private  and  personal  conviction,  in  its  inner  aspect  (Pri- 
vatsache)  ;  and  the  fact  that  it  has  Ijeen  planted,  watered,  in- 
creased and  ordered  in  a  Church  *  which  Christ  Himself  es- 
tablished, and  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  works  through  the 
Word,  is  overlooked  and  neglected.  Wherever  there  are  a 
number  of  personal  wills  united  in  one  organism  or  body,  as 
in  the  (^hurch,  there  must  be  one  fundamental  Authority — 
the  Conviction — the  Faith. 

The  underlying  Conviction  that  animates,  holds  together 
and  directs  the  wills  in  their  Communion  Avith  each  other — 
the  Faith,  and  its  Confession, — must  be  a  common  one. 
And  this  general  principle  of  a  common  life  of  the  many 
members  in  one  body  is  all  the  more  true  in  the  case  of  the 
Church,  because  the  union  of  persons  in  the  Church  is  not 
primarily  a  union  of  wills,  as  between  each  other;  but  it 
is  first  a  rooting  of  each  will  in  Christ,  and  thus  only  a 
realization  of  inner  union  with  one  another. 

The  fundamental  attitiule  of  much  scholarship,  to-day, 
toward  religion  forgets  that  authority — whether  external  or 
internal,  or  both — is  always  essential  in  human  thought  and 
life.  Goethe  has  declared  that  "every  liberation  of  intellect 
without  a  correlate  growth  in  control,  is  fatal."  Authority 
is  the  co-ordinate,  and  the  complement  of  liberty.  Xeither 
are  to  be  suppressed ;  both  are  to  be  maintained — in  balance. 

Without  authority — for  direction,  appeal,  and  decision, — • 
no  step  of  intellectual,  spiritual  or  social  activity  is  possi- 
ble. The  question  is  not  really  as  to  authority,  but  as  to  its 
proper  seat  and  location.      The  motto  of  the  ancient   pre- 

*  "  The  right  of  the  Church  as  an  organized  society  to  have  a  mind  regarding 
the  great  truths  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  to  express  that  mind  and  exhibit 
that  mind,  can  hardly  be  disputed.  A  statement  so  produced  is  a  church  creed. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  legitimate  and  important  functions  to  which  the  Church 
can  address   itself. — Bauslin,  Freedom  of  Teachivr/. 


vi  INTRODUCTION. 

Christian,  of  the  mediaeval,  and  of  modern  Roman,  civiliza- 
tion, is  "Society  above  the  individual."  This  ancient  tyr- 
anny repeats  itself  to-day  in  scientific  form  in  the  motto, 
^'  The  race  above  the  individual " ;  in  sociological  form, 
when  the  State  assumes  to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the 
individual,  and  passes  laws  which  propose  to  regulate  the 
personal  life,  health,  education,  acts,  interests,  and  happiness 
of  the  individual ;  and  in  political  form,  when  the  axiom  of 
authority,  "The  majority  rules",  is  pressed  ruthlessly  against 
the  minority.  The  same  tyranny  is  found  or  imported 
into  nature  as  the  seat  of  authority,  Avhen  its  law^s  are  inter- 
preted as  reducible  to  the  axiom  that  "Might  makes  right", 
or  "The  strongest  survive." 

The  reaction  againgt  this  tyranny  over  the  individual, 
so  characteristic  of  the  ancient  world,  and  manifesting  it- 
self in  modern  sociology  and  science,  is  the  extreme  Roman- 
tic, or  revolutionary,  position,  well  expressed  in  the  motto  of 
Rousseau :  "The  individual  above  society."  If  the  absolute 
enforcement  of  authority  upon  the  individual  is  Romanism, 
this  elevation  of  the  individual  to  the  supreme  seat  is  Pro- 
testantism gone  to  seed.  It  was  already  inherent  in  the 
humanism  of  the  Reformation,  and  occasioned  the  contro- 
versies with  Fanaticism  in  theology,  and  the  Peasants'  War 
in  sociology,  in  Luther's  day. 

Hence,  while  the  tyranny  of  Rome  is  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  Church  over  conscience,  the  tyranny  of  liberal 
Protestantism  is  the  supreme  authority  of  every  man's  con- 
science over  the  Scripture  and  the  Church.  Both  positions 
are  extreme  and  sce})tical.  That  of  Rome  distrusts  the 
Truth  in  its  power  over  the  individual  conscience,  while  that 
of  liberal  Protestantism  suspects  the  Truth  of  Scriptui'e 
and  the  Church,  and  does  not  believe  that  there  is  one  ob- 
jective and  stable  centre  of  truth  revealed  from  above  in 
which  the  consciences  of  all  perfect  men  can  believe  and  unite. 
As  against  the  scepticism  of  the  isolated,  thinking  Protest- 
ant, Rome  is  almost  sure  to  win  in  the  end,  for  having  tried 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

ev^ery  position  of  solitary  speculation,  the  mind,  exhausted 
and  unwilling  to  abide  all  alone,  will  yield  to  the  funda- 
mental craving  for  authority,  and  fall  back  helplessly  into 
the  strong  arms  that  seem  to  offer  it  certainty  in  a  guaranteed 
and  absolute  sense.  The  end  of  Protestantism  without  the 
Word  of  God  as  the  one  common  and  absolute  authority  is 
either  skepticism  or  Romanism. 

For  the  result  of  the  elevation  of  the  individual  as  a  law 
unto  himself  in  defiance  of  any  established  order — whether 
it  be  in  theology,  philosophy,  ethics,  politics,  sociology,  or 
the  state  itself, — is  always  anarchy.  "Anarchism",  it  has 
been  said,  "  is  the  acute  outbreak  of  individualism."  It 
is  "The  permanent  liberty  of  change,"  the  elevation  of 
the  right  of  individual  change  into  law.  It  is  self-destruc- 
tive in  theology,  as  elsewhere.  It  does  possess  one  value,  in 
an  effete  system,  or  society,  or  state,  viz.,  it  is  a  purgative. 
It  loosens  up  all  the  various  elements  and  principles,  tearing 
them  out  of  their  old  relations,  and  puts  each  to  the  test  of 
vindicating  its  own  strength,  and  renders  new  combinations 
of  relation  possible.  But  this  property  of  violent  revolution 
may  destroy  the  good  Avith  the  evil — the  wheat  with  the  tares; 
and  even  when  ultimate  good  is  attained  by  it,  it  is  at  a 
fearful  expense — and  only  because  ultimately  a  new  order, 
and  a  new  authority  is  re-estahlished.  So  that  the  very 
highest  value  that  can  be  assigned  to  supreme  individualism 
is  a  temporary  one,  which  always  issues  in  a  new  form  of 
authority. 

Since  one  of  the  essential  elements  of  religion,  as  of  all 
truth,  is  unchangeableness ;  and  since  in  religion  there  must 
be  both  unchangeableness  and  finality,  even  this  Twentieth 
Century  should  see  that,  if  it  is  to  keep  any  religion  at  all, 
it  must  not  be  a  religion  of  individualism,  of  poetic  values, 
of  speculative  outlook,  of  temperamental  trust,  but  a  religion 
of  authority.  However,  this  authority  must  have  the  free- 
dom of  an  unrestrained  and  living  faith  and  a  voluntary 
trust,  as  its  corollary,     Neither  Romanism,  nor  the  axiom, 


viii  INTRODUCTION. 

"Religion  ist  Privatsache  "  (i.  e.,  Religion  is  a  private  mat- 
ter), -will  meet  the  ease. 

-  Sabatier/  in  his  great  discussion,  admits  the  necessity 
of  authority ;  but,  after  the  manner  of  the  positivist  school, 
he  seeks  to  ground  it  in  humanity.  How  feebly  such  an 
authority  gains  the  assent  of  reason,  and  how  inadequately 
it  answers  the  requirements  of  the  religious,  the  moral,  and 
tlie  social  life,  would  soon  be  concretely  demonstrated,  if  the 
Ritschlian  doctrine  of  judgments  of  value  were  to  actually 
become  the  sole  rule  of  faith  and  life,  and  modem  prag- 
matism were  to  prevail. 

Saba  tier  does  not  see  that  the  life-roots  of  the  immanent 
everywhere  penetrate  into  the  transcendent;  and  that,  if 
you  cut  away  the  transcendent,  the  two  paradisical  trees  of 
Liberty  and  Authority  will  both  die.  Without  faith  in 
Truth  above  the  grasp  of  reason,  it  is  impossible  to  ground 
authority.  While  Sabatier  is  right  in  declaring  that  "  an 
established  aiUthority,  however  great  its  antiquity  or  its 
power  (the  Church  is  such  an  authority),  never  carries  its 
justification  in  itself " ;  yet  the  something  outside  of  ''  the 
established  authority  ",  which  does  "  carry  its  justification 
in  itself",  is  not  the  Truth  which  the  human  reason  is  able 
to  discover  and  formulate;  for  that  is  relative,  conditioned, 
and  lacks  finality.  The  only  Truth  which  carries  its  justi- 
fication in  itself  is  the  Truth  which  is  stretched  out  after 
and  gratefully  grasped  by  faith — the  Truth  of  God,  whose 
apprehensibility  or  inapprehensibility  by  our  reason,  does 
not  condition  its  validity.  Final  authority  comes  from 
God,  through  His  Word;  and  not  from  humanity,  through 
its  reason. 

But  such  fiual  authority  docs  not  bind  or  oppress  the  rea- 
son. It  is  actual  and  effectual,  but  not  compulsory.  The 
reason  is  free  to  ])ass  upon  and  reject  it.  And  yet  reason  i-; 
simply  a  subjective  and  private  scales  whose  tests  may  help 
or  harm  its  owner,   tests  that  are  private  and  post-eventiu 

'  RcUgiona  of  Authority. 


INTRODUCTION.  be 

experiments,  which,  whether  successful  or  unsuccessful,  in 
no  wise  affect  the  order  of  God/  The  reason  does  not  or- 
dain, establish,  determine,  or  even  accept,  religious  authority. 
The  final  authority,  if  grasped  at  all,  is  grasped  by  faith. 
Authority  is  a  power  of  fact  that,  like  a  star,  exists  and 
shines  and  rules,  even  though  a  blind  world  is  unable  to  dis- 
cern its  existence.  For  those  who  do  discern  that  the  seat 
of  all  authority  is  above,  in  God,  and  in  God's  Word ;  and 
that  it  is  not  mediated  through  reason,  but  taken  hold  of 
by  faith,  as  final,  immutable,  and  adequate, — God's  W'^ord 
carries  its  own  justification  in  itself.  It  testifies  to  man's 
faith  and  conscience  in  such  way  as  to  produce  certainty,  a 
deep  inner  conviction,  which  then,  in  turn,  rises  into  ^Yitness 
on  behalf  of  such  authority. 

It  is  this  Witness,  the  Witness  of  God  to  man,  in  the 
Scripture  ("  Thy  Word  is  Truth  "),  and  the  Witness  of  man 
to  the  Truth  of  God,  in  the  comnnmion  of  Him  Who  is  the 
Personal  Truth  of  God,  of  which  this  book  treats.  This 
Witness  of  the  Church  of  Christ  is  her  Confession.  Though 
authority  accepted  'by  faith',  and  not  'by  sight',  is  the 
foundation  of  this  book,  and  of  its  witness,  we  are  confident 
that  the  book  cannot  justly  be  termed  reactionary.  Change 
in  itself  is  not  progress ;  and  the  right  of  every  individual 
to  think  as  he  pleases  is  not,  in  itself,  the  attainment  of  lib- 
erty— least  of  all,  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of 
God,  whose  thought  is  qualified  by  the  deep  knowledge  they 
have  gained  by  their  fear,  love  and  trust  in  their  Heavenly 
Father. 

The  spirit  of  this  work  is  that  of  progress,  but  progress 
in  a  development  whose  line  is  already  foreordained  and 
fixed  in  the  eternal  and  unchangeable  principle  of  Christ, 

•Nature  is  not  the  whole  of  God's  world,  neither  is  history.  Nature  Is  not 
a  whole,  nor  is  history,  apart  from  God's  greater  world.  "  Nature  and  history 
do  not  exist  in  isolation  :  for  they  are  caught  up  into  a  moral  and  spiritual 
system  with  which  they  are  throughout  in  vital  relations.  It  is  not  for  anyone 
to  say  offhand  what  is  or  is  not  naturally  or  historically  conceivable  in  such  a 
system.  ...  If  anything  is  certain,  it  is  that  the  world  is  not  made  to 
the  measure  of  any  science  or  philosophy,  but  on  a  scale  which  perpetually 
summons  philosophy  and  science  to  construct  themselves  anew." — Denney, 
Jesus  and  the  Gospel. 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

given  us  in  the  Word.  As  new  lights  begin  to  glow,  and 
new  thoughts  and  points  of  view  begin  to  be  occupied,  and 
the  right  of  an  age  to  its  own  developing  thought  and  feeling 
is  maintained,  there  will  be,  we  admit,  a  change  in  the  estab- 
lished intellectual  construction  of  the  faith  ;  but  this  change 
will  not  concern  any  particle  of  the  Scriptural  substance,  only 
the  human  form  of  its  apj^rehension  in  the  Confession.  The 
distinction  cannot  be  drawn  between  soundness  in  faith  and 
soundness  in  doctrine,'  except  in  so  far  as  doctrine  is  not 
clearly  the  unchangeable  revelation  of  the  unchangeable 
Word  of  God. 

When  then  the  thought  of  a  new  age  and  the  life  of  a  new 
movement  in  the  Church  seeks  to  come  to  its  own,  we  say: 
Yes,  so  long  as  the  principle  of  the  new  age  does  not  assume 
to  set  aside,  but  finds  its  proper  historical  place  in  the  one 
principle  of  all  the  ages,  let  there  be  progress.  As  a  believing 
witness,  we  are  ready  to  stand  and  to  suffer  for  the  Confes- 
sion that  abides  through  all  the  ages,  because  it  corresponds 
to  the  Truth  that  forms,  rules,  and  judges,  all  the  ages. 

We  realize  the  cost  of  this  position.  The  currents  of 
knowledge  are  flowing  away  from  a  fixed  faith,  and  are  beat- 
ing against  a  fixed  Confession.  The  Church  is  told  plainly 
that  she  will  be  left  high  and  dry — a  mere  fossilized  sea- 
shell  on  a  desert  beach, — if  she  does  not  come  down  from 
her  confessional  rocks,  and  join  the  living  forces  battling  in 
tlie  waves. 

We  realize  to  the  full  that  the  new  order  has  revolutionized 
historical,  spiritual  and  social  values,  even  for  those  whose 
life  and  love  are  found  within  the  Church.  ]\Iodernism 
does  not  stand  witliout,  and  is  not  knocking  as  a  sup])liant 
at  the  doors  of  tlie  Church.  It  is  rising  in  the  hearts  of  the 
children,  whose  fathers'  blood  has  always  been  loyal  to  tlie 
great  llotlier.  The  enemies  of  the  Church's  doctrine  and 
Confession  are  often  her  own  most  brilliant  and  thoughtful 
sons.      The   Mother  sees  her  ovm  offspring   repudiate   their 

'  As  Denney  attempts  to  do. — Resits  and  the  Oospel,  p.  340. 


INTRODUCTION.  xi 

material  birthriglit,  even  when — at  times — they  are  proud 
to  bear  her  face  and  name. 

The  Church  is,  in  part,  hut  only  in  part,  to  blame.  Her 
own  children  disciplined  in  an  atmosphere  of  experimental 
science,  rather  than  of  uiighty  faitli,  know  no  final  authority, 
save  in  modernly  established  truth.  Our  poor  organ  of 
reason  has  been  exalted  in  their  eyes.  To  them  each  new 
achievement  in  knowledge  is  a  new  revelation  of  God. 
"  The  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  are  not  inflexible,  but 
are  to  be  accommodated  to  every  new  measure  of  intellectual 
truth.''  They  have  come  to  believe  that  the  evangelical 
Church  is  kee])ing  herself  ])reoccnpied  with  the  spiritual 
teachings  of  a  bygone  age  and  is  thus  living  apart  from  the 
actual  life  of  to-day. 

They  tell  us  plainly  that  "  The  Church  cannot  expect  to 
reproduce  the  conditions  of  thought  of  the  long  past  period 
out  of  which  came  the  sacred  symbols  of  its  faith.  The  new 
age  is  ready  to  break  away  from  familiar  channels  of  ex- 
pression. There  is  a  change  of  intellectual  attitude,  and  a 
temper  of  investigation  towards  all  authority,  so  deep  and 
far-reaching  that  even  the  most  conservative  observer  is 
startled."  "  Between  a  world  which  exalts  intellectual  in- 
tegrity, and  an  institution  Avhich  demands  of  its  disciples 
limitation  of  thought,  there  can  be  no  abiding  union,"  they 
declare. 

Accredited  liberal  theologians  tell  us  that  "  the  official 
ministry  of  the  Church  grows  less  and  less  attractive  to  the 
generous-minded  youth  of  to-day."  ''  ^o  loving  parent  can 
ever  again  accept  the  monstrous  doctrine  that  the  child  of 
their  love  is  'conceived  and  born  in  sin'.  Against  the  an-' 
thority  of  the  Church  (and  of  Scripture),  human  conscioufi- 
ness  has  raised  up  a  higher  authority,  and  dictates  the  voice 
of  a  diviner  truth  to  the  souls  of  men."  "  The  Church  is 
blindly  bent  on  upholding  obsolete  doctrine,  and  remains 
strangely  detached  from  the  vital  interests  of  the  rising 
giant  of  industrial  democracy,  with  its  new  social  standards, 


xii  INTRODUCTION. 

and  its  new  estimate  of  the  worth  of  the  individual  in  this 
worhl ;  as  well  as  from  the  controlling  spirit  of  the  moral  and 
intclloftiial  world.  The  questions  of  historic,  liturgical  and 
doctrinal  phrase,  and  ecclesiastical  propagation  of  missions 
with  which  the  Church  is  so  largely  occupied,  imply  a  dif- 
ferent condition  of  life  and  thought.  The  Church  lives 
amid  lingering  memories  of  a  world  that  has  passed  away. 
The  divisions  of  Protestantism  have  become  temperamental 
rather  tlian  doctrinal,  and  we  look  for  the  Protestant  chrys- 
alis soon  to  emerge  from  the  cocoon  (or  carcass)  of  outworn 
doctrine."  Even  when  the  Church  tries  to  stoop  and  take 
hold  of  the  problems  of  life  and  social  change,  its  way  of 
approach  is  grotesque  to  the  modern  mind.  ''The  Church 
is  concerned  with  its  heritage  of  rights,  and  its  protection  of 
past  glories,  with  its  traditions  and  forms,  which  it  holds 
to  be  essential  elements  of  its  life  and  authority.  It  has 
something  to  preserve  which  is  alien  to  to-day's  thought,  and 
conq^letely  fails  to  meet  mod(M'n  conditions  with  a  modern 
mind." 

This  is  tlie  situation  with  which  Protestantism  in  general, 
and  the  Lutlicran  Confession  in  particular,  is  confronted,  in 
the  educational  and  sociological  world  of  to-day.  Men  who 
are  filled  with  noble  ardor  and  enthusiasm  to  do  things,  and 
men  who  are  not  deeply  rooted,  or  who  live  in  the  moment,  or 
who  are  time-servers,  would  yield  up,  some  more,  some  less, 
the  Confession  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  with  its  doctrines 
of  justification,  faith,  ihe  Word,  and  the  Sacraments.  In  their 
view,  the  CMnirch  has  no  excuse  for  'winding  the  garments  of 
]Media?valism  around  the  neck  and  lindis  of  generations  yet 
amborn.'  The  very  mention  of  Confessional  fidelity  throws 
a  dark  and  ghioniy  shadow  athwart  the  stream  of  Twenti(?th- 
(Vntury  Life  to  such  as  these.  If  this  Twentieth-Century 
Spirit  be  a  part  of  the  Divine  pi'ogrrss  upward,  Lutheran- 
ism  should  innnediately  abandon  her  labors  in  the  Eaith. 

But  if  the  Truth — the  Truth  that  will  save  the  race — 
has  come  down  from  above,  and  is  not  rising  up  from  be- 
neath; if  God  did  speak  to  men  in  the  fulness  of  time;  if 


INTRODUCTION.  xiii 

tlirro  is  a  fixed  and  iiiimntahle  principle  amid  the  changing; 
if  this  present  age  is  not  the  only  one  to  be  considered,  but 
there  is  a  sum  of  all  the  ages ;  if  God  has  given  ns  not  only 
the  truth  discovered  to-day,  but  the  Gosjiel  revealed  many 
days  ago, — then  Lutheranisni,  which  has  cast  off  the  clumsy 
armor  of  Meditvval  Rome,  and  yet  has  retained  the  staff, 
and  the  wallet,  and  the  stone  of  the  olden  day,  is  here, — 
unjiretentions,  unheralded,  and  nncostumed,  but  also  nnterri- 
ticd   and  strong  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God, — to  fight  the 
battle  against  the  giant,  whether  he  be  the  boaster  of  an 
aggressive  Pelagian  social  order,  or  the  cultured  humanistic 
theologian.     Lutheranisni  does  not  fight  negatively  by  crit- 
icism; by  the  raising  of  doubt:  by  amalgamation  with  more 
powerful  forces ;  or  l)y  conciliation  of  the  philosophies  that 
threaten  her  position.     Xor  does  she  attempt  to  uphold  and 
introduce  her  principle  of  truth  into  the  w<u-ld  by  law.  by 
legislation,   by   social    influence,   or  by   jdausible  reasoning. 
The  one  wea])on  in  lier  sling  is  quick  and  ]iowerful,  piercing 
even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit;  and  is  a 
discerner  of  the  thought  and  intents  of  the  heart.     She  is  the 
Church  who  stakes  all  on  bearing  Witness.     Her  office  is 
one  of  Public  Proclamation  and  Confession  of  the  Truth  as 
it  is  in  Christ  Jesus.     The  Preaching  of  God's  Word,  pure 
and  as  given  in  Scripture,  is  her  central  activity.     She  is 
not  here,  primarily,  to  regulate,  reconstruct  or  reform  society. 
She  is  not  here  as  a  visible  and  hierarchical  embodiment  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth ;  but  she  is  here  to  proclaim 
and  apply  God's  Word,  in  Scripture,  sermon  and  sacrament. 
She  is  the  Church  of  faithful,  regular  and  continuous  Wit- 
ness to  the  Truth.     Hence- the  source  ol  her  Witness,  the 
AVord ;   and  the  standard  of  her  Witness,,  the   Confessions, 
are  central;  and  she  is  willing, — as  indeed  she  must  be,  if 
she  wishes  to  live, — to  abide  by  and  uphold  her  Confessional 
PrinciiDle. 


preface 


CHEISTIANITY  exerting  itself  for  twenty  centuries  upon 
the  life  and  history  of  God's  fallen  world,  has  not  crystal- 
lized into  one  universally  accepted  principle,  or  clad  itself 
ill  one  all-embracing  seamless  garment.  Neither  its  Faith,  nor  its 
Church,  have  emerged  and  appear  as  a  perfect  reflection,  in  a  flawless 
human  unity,  of  the  heavenly  entity.  Its  Faith  has  issued  in  a 
four-branched  Confession.  The  secret  of  this  divergent  efl'ect 
of  the  One  Truth  is  to  be  sought  in  the  relation  which  man  has 
accepted  for  his  mind  to  the  Word  and  institution  of  Christ. 
Absolute  dependence  on  the  Church  visualized  has  resulted  in  the 
Graeco-Eoman  Confession.  Absolute  dependence  on  the  Word, 
that  is,  on  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Word,  in  the  Church,  has  resulted 
in  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Confession.  Relative  dependence  on 
the  Book  and  on  the  Spirit  in  the  heart,  and  relative  independence 
of  the  Word  in  the  Church  has  resulted  in  modern  Evangelical 
Protestantism.  Complete  independence  of  Christ's  Word  and 
Church,  and  some  dependence  on  Christ's  Spirit  in  the  heart  has 
resulted  in  a  rational  Protestantism. 

Thus  we  i*each  four  fundamentally  diverse  answers  as  to  the 
nature,  means  and  effect  of  Christianity.  Does  Christ  come  to 
man  at  all  ?  The  Christian  says,  He  does.  Does  Christ  touch  man 
sola  through  the  Church  ?  The  Komanist  says,  He  does.  Does 
Christ  touch  man  .so/f/  through  His  Word  in  the  Church?  The  Luth- 
eran says,  He  does.  Does  Christ  touch  man  partly  through  the  Book, 
partly  through  the  Holy  Spirit  direct?  The  modern  Evangelical 
Protestant  saj's.  He  does.  Does  Christ  touch  the  heart  sola  through 
the  natural  influence  of  His  words  and  life,  without  a  supernatural 
power  in  Word  or  institution?  The  rational  Protestant  says,  He 
does.  The  four  divergent  branchings  of  the  Christian  Principle, 
thus  acknowledged  and  held  by  men,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 
absolute  dependence  on  the  Church,  absolute  dependence  on  the 
Word,  relative  dependence  on  the  Book,  and  mental  in- 
dependence of  Book,  Word  and  Church. 


xvi  P  E  E  r  A  C  E 

Christianity,  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  is  dependence  on  Christ. 
The  dependence  is  absolute,  invisible,  and  real.  Its  sole  means  is 
Christ's  own  Word.  That  Word  is  brought  to  us,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  in  an  institution,  which,  though  it  is  not  a  source  of  authority, 
is  nevertheless  a  divine  and  objective  reality,  Christ's  invisible 
communion  or  body  in  which  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  is 
found  and  in  which  it  works.    This  is  the  Lutheran  Confession. 

The  Holy  Spirit  has  been  applying  the  mighty  Word  of  Christ 
and  building  the  Church  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  down.  Of  the 
eighteen  centuries  of  Christian  history,  the  first  four  and  the  last 
four  have  been  epochal.  The  ancient  centuries  were  catholic,  and 
the  modern  are  Protestant.  Lutheranism  accepts  the  Catholic  un- 
folding, and  stood,  herself,  at  the  head  of  the  Protestant  develop- 
ment. In  1917  it  will  be  four  hundred  years  since  the  sound  of 
Luther's  hammer  awoke  the  Christian  world  to  the  Gospel  and  to 
the  evils  of  Romanism,  and  one  hundred  years  since  Claus  Harms' 
clarion  call  stirred  the  Church  from  Rationalism  to  a  realization 
of  her  Gospel  treasures,  and  to  a  resistance  of  the  enfeebling  meshes 
of  Latitudinarianism  and  Unionism. 

For  Lutheranism,  though  not  ascetic,  but  accepting  heartily  a 
full-orbed  human  life,  including  the  virility  and  the  efflorescence  of 
the  humanities,  the  virtues  of  the  heart,  the  value  of  the  deed,  the 
gracious  strength  and  helpfulness  of  human  brotherhood,  in  their 
own  sphere  in  the  relation  of  man  to  fellow  man,  is  the  one  persist- 
ent protest  on  this  earth  against  humanism  as  a  religion;  and 
against  the  adulteration  of  the  divine  salvation  with  human  values, 
and  the  incorporation  of  elements  of  character,  love,  brotherhood, 
knowledge,  speculation  or  science  into  the  texture  of  the  Christian 
Faith.  On  the  one  hand,  the  seamless  garment  of  Christ  is  not 
His  Church  as  the  ecclesiastics  tell  us ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not 
a  big  heart,  a  sympathetic  view,  a  fraternal  grasp,  and  a  helping 
hand  as  the  humanist  would  have  \is  believe.  Its  one  thread  in 
warp  and  woof  is  simply  and  solely  the  Word  of  Christ.  The  dif- 
ference between  this  teaching  and  the  current  religious  conscious- 
ness of  the  day  is  as  the  difference  between  heaven  and  earth. 

The  true  Lutheran  will  not  gloss  over  this  difference  but  will 
recognize  the  seriousness  of  the  struggle  which  the  Lutheran  Con- 
fession at  times  asphyxiated  in  the  house  of  its  friends,  has  to 
make  in  order  to  effectively  proclaim  its  message. 


PKEFACE  xvii 

Religiou  no  longer  hovers  on  the  mountain  cliffs  of  the  invisible 
world,  and  the  Church  faces  distaste  for  a  salvation  not  visibly 
effective  here  on  earth.  Protestantism  is  inclined  to  find  salvation 
in  the  green  lowlands  of  social  brotherhood.  Christ  walked  in  these 
lovely  lowlands,  and  His  walk  rather  than  His  work,  in  Scripture, 
are  held  before  the  eye.  The  one  really  essential  fact  in  the  Church 
is  made  to  be  that  it  teach  and  represent  the  great  brotherhood  of 
our  common  life,  a  brotherhood  of  fellow-sympathy,  a  brotherhood 
of  work,  of  altruistic  action,  and  social  aim,  on  which  the  community 
is  to  build  its  higher  hope.  The  one  unessential  fact,  apparently, 
is  that  the  Church  represent  the  brotherhood  revealed  in  the  Gospel, 
the  brotherhood  of  faith. 

This  raises  the  question  in  the  Church,  for  those  who  hold  the 
Word  of  God  as  the  only  power  and  judge  of  spiritual,  that  is,  eter- 
nal life,  whether  the  determining  principle  of  'brotherhood'  is  to  be 
the  sentiment  and  exercise  of  charity;'  or  whether  Christ's  principle 
of  brotherhood  in  His  Church  is  the  Gospel  offer  of  a  brotherhood  of 
faith.  Are  we  brethren  because  we  are  of  one  blood,  or  are  we  breth- 
ren in  Christ  because  we  are  blood-bought  and  justified  by  faith  in 
His  blood,  through  and  in  Him  alone  doing  the  will  of  His  Father 
which  is  in  Heaven?  Has  Christ  a  peculiar  people,  or  do  all  good 
Americans,  let  us  say,  belong  to  Him  and  His  flock?  Are  we  saved 
by  faith  sola,  or  are  we  entitled  to  fellowship  without  saving  faith  ? 


*The  determining  principle  toward  our  fellowmen,  according  to  the  law  of 
God  and  the  command  of  Christ,  is  Charity.  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself"  is  the  second  law  of  the  decalogue.  But  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween 'neighbor'  and  'brother.'  Christ  did  not  select  the  Good  Samaritan, 
or  those  who  gave  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  His  little  ones,  but  those  who  gave 
it  for  His  name's  sake,  who  confessed  Him  In  a  wicked  generation,  as  His 
friends  and  brethren.  "Who  are  my  brethren?  And  he  stretched  forth  his 
hand  toward  Jiis  disciples,  and  said.  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren  !  For 
whosoever  shall  do  the  icill  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my 
brother,  and  sister,  and  mother."— Matt.  12  :48-50.  "There  is  no  man  that 
hath  left. . .  .hrethren. . .  .for  the  kingdom  of  God's  sake,  who  shall  not  receive 
manifold  more." — Luke  18  :29-30.  "Conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that 
he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  hrethren.  .  .  .ichom  he  called,  them  he 
also  justified." — Rom.  8:29-30.  "For  it  became  him.  .  .  .in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  suffer- 
ings. For  both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  ttho  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one; 
for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren,  saying,  I  will  de- 
clare thy  name  unto  my  brethren :  in  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing 
praise  unto  thee,"  etc. — Heb.  2  :10-17.  "Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto 
one  of  the  least  of  these  viy  brethren  {i.  e.,  children  of  the  Father,  who  by 
faith  inherit  the  kingdom,  v.  34),  ye  have  done  it  unto  me." — Matt.  25:40. 

B 


xviii  P  E  E  F  A  C  E 

Are  Christians,  who  regard  themselves  as  saved"  by  character,  in 
th<3  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ'^  Or,  if  faith  is  the  principle, 
shall  its  minimum  be  taken  as  the  normal  condition  of  fellowship'^ 
Shall  apprehension  of  some  fundamentals  be  sufficient  for  the 
Church,  or  shall  the  unity  be  determined  by  the  full  truth  of  God's 
Word'^  Have  God's  representatives  on  earth  the  option  to  offer  a 
discount  on  the  terms  set  by  God,  in  order  to  meet  a  given  situa- 
tion? May  we  overlook  the  sola  fide  in  order  that  our  churches  on 
earth  be  filled  with  guests,  and  that  Heaven  itself  be  not  too  utterly 
empty  'i 

The  Church  of  the  Lutheran  Eeformation  has  wrought  in 
America  for  well-nigh  three  centuries,  and  will  in  a  few  years  be 
adding  one  more  century  to  its  history.  Her  value  in  this  land  de- 
pends upon  her  fidelity  to  her  Confession.  If  her  Confession  is 
out  of  date,  she  herself  is  but  an  obsolete  barrier  in  the  pathway 
to  a  common  development,  and  deserves  to  disappear  into  the  com- 
mon and  indeterminate  Protestantism  of  her  American  environment. 

Few  will  realize  that  it  has  been  almost  forty  years  since  The 
Conservative  Befoimation ,  that  mighty  protagonist  of  confessional 
English  Lutheran  ism,  lifting  up  its  stature  and  spear,  head  and 
shoulders  aliove  all  the  host  of  Israel,  establishing  the  Church  in 
her  old  faith,  and  defending  her  against  all  assault,  made  its  pow- 
erful presence  felt  in  the  Church  in  this  land.  Since  that  day 
there  has  not  appeared  in  our  language  any  complete  work  devoted 
to  Confessional  Lutheranism,"  save  only  the  small  book  on  Distinc- 
tive Doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

But  since  that  day  a  new  generation  has  arisen  whose  eyes  never 
Ijeheld  the  formative  conflicts.  Old  issues  have  taken  on  new 
forms.  The  substance  of  The  Conservative  Reformation  has  been 
absorbed  and  become  an  element  of  strength  in  the  leaders  of 
the  Church  now  in  their  maturity.  .The  important  occasion  of  the  old 
polemic  has  disappeared.  Progress  has  been  made  in  sound  Confes- 
sion. Ecclesiastical  efforts  have  aimed  to  reach  a  position  on  which 
the  Lutheran  Church  as  a  whole  could  be  planted.  Now  that  this  ac- 


"This  Is  the  practical  teaching  of  mnny  Amprican  Protestants. 

■■'Of  Dogmatic  Treatises  there  have  been  a  rich  array:  Schmid,  Doctrinal 
Theology,  Jacobs.  Elements  of  Religion,  KSstlin,  Theology  of  Luther,  Seeberg, 
History  of  Doctrines,  Valentine,  Christian  Theology,  and  .Jacobs,  Summary  of 
the  Christian,  Faith.  In  addition  there  appeared  in  1882  the  monumental 
Boole  of  Concord,  edited  and  translated  for  the  English  reader  by  Jacobs. 


P  E  E  F  A  C  E  xix 

tivity  apparently  lia.s  given  way  to  the  tendency  to  emphasize  an  ex- 
ternal Confessionalisni,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  over-estimate 
the  external  fact  of  denominational  fellowship,  the  time  is  here 
for  a  more  ample  setting-  forth  of  the  Church's  full  and  inner  Con- 
fessional Principle,  in  a  just  and  adequate  manner,  with  no  par- 
tisan intent,  but  in  the  majestic  light  of  the  original  Catholic  and 
the  real  Evangelical  testimony,  and  in  such  form  that  the  power 
of  the  old  Witness  will  appeal  to  the  thought  and  the  soul  of  the 
generation  of  this  day;  and  may  bring  to  the  service  of  Christ's 
nnchangeable  Word,  and  to  the  preservation  of  the  one  Evangeli- 
cal Catholic  Church,  the  will,  the  words,  and  tlie  works  of  those 
who  are  moved  to  abide  in  the  Word  and  institution  of  Christ  and 
in  its  Confession. 

After  The  Conservaiive  Reformation  had  apix-arcd,  Philip 
Scliaff  issued  his  great  work  describing  The  Creeds  of  Christendom. 
and  remarked  that  in  a  country  like  ours,  where  we  daily  meet 
people  of  all  possible  beliefs,  men  should  devote  more  attention  to 
the  study  of  the  Christian  Confession,  that  they  may  give  those 
with  whom  they  discuss  the  subject  a  convincing  reason  for  the 
faith  that  is  in  them.  The  intelligent  study  and  appropriation  of 
the  symbols  of  one's  faith,  from  whose  principles  the  varied  medley 
of  religious  teachings  that  cry  aloud  in  our  time,  or  come  under 
our  observation,  may  be  examined  and  tested,  is  as  important,  at 
least,  as  the  study  of  the  underlying  principles  and  causes  of  our 
ethical  or  social  structure  and  its  problems. 

A  new,  and  strictly  historical,  examination  of  the  Confessional 
structure  of  the  Lutheran  Faith,  from  the  solid  view-point  of  the 
introductions  to  the  new  German  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
cannot  be  postponed  without  injury  to  the  Church.  The  researches 
of  the  last  two  decades  in  Germany,  and  alleged  recent  discoveries, 
by  such  scholars  as  Brieger  on  the  one  hand,  and  Kolde  on  the 
other,  have  rendered  this  examination  necessary,  as  well  to  those 
who  confess  the  specific  and  vital,  as  to  those  who  rest  in  the  mere 
generic.  Faith  of  the  Church. 

The  history  of  the  Lutheran  Confession  has  been  written  often. 
The  first  print  of  the  oldest  narration  of  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  in 
1530,  from  the  arrival  of  his  Majesty  to  the  delivery  of  the  Confes- 


XX  PKEFACE 

sion,  bears  the  title,  Ain  hurtze  Anzaycjung*  The  history  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  which  the  Roman  Catholics  printed  in  ir):J<i 
with  imi)erial  privilege  bears  the  title,  Pro  Beligione  Christiana 
res  gestae.^  This  Romtin  Catholic  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion was  refuted  by  a  Saxon  minister  shortly  after  the  Diet,  under 
the  title,  Folrjen  verzcichent  alle  Stiich  so  im  Druch  dem  Handel 
miissen  inferirt  und  eingeleiht  werden.  Though  ready  for  print, 
the  work  was  left  lie  at  Weimar.  Muller  in  his  History  of  the 
Protestation  has  taken  many  remarkable  things  from  this  manu- 
script, while  Seckendorf,  in  his  History  of  Lutheranism,  p.  202, 
believes  that  neither  Colestin  nor  Chytriius  knew  of  the  work.* 

To  these  original  rills  must  be  added  Briick,  Geschichte  der  Be- 
ligionsverhandlungen  auf  dem  Reichstag  zu  Augshurg  im  J.  1530 J 
and  the  always  indispensable  and  abounding  Corpus  Beformato- 
rum;  but  the  real  historical  stream  gathered  itself  in  the  works  of 
Chytriius,  Colestin,  Miiller,  Salig,  Cyprian  and  Weber.  All  these 
men  used  the  Reformation  documents  stored  in  the  German  ar- 
chives, and  tried  to  draw  their  material  from  the  original  acts. 
Chytraus,  in  his  Historia  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  1576, 
took  pain.s  to  obviate  all  doubt  as  to  his  translations  and  writings, 
and  placed  at  the  end  of  his  German  edition  a  list  of  the  most 
prominent  documents  that  he  incorporated  in  his  history,  together 
with  a  clear  statement  of  the  places  from  which  they  were  taken. 
He  says  that  he  gathered  from  the  official  acts  and  trustworthy  tes- 
timonies of  those  who  themselves  were  participants  in  the  Confes- 
sional proceedings,  and  "took  particular  pains  not  to  include  any 
uncertain  or  suspicious  \vritlngs."  He  says,  therefore,  "I  pray  that 
others  will  allow  this  work  to  remain  unaltered  and  unimproved." 

As  to  Colestin,  Weber  assails  him  bitterly,  and  tries  to  prove 
that,  despite  his  abundant  access  to  historical  materials,  he  was  mi- 
scrupidous  in  his  u^^e  of  them.  He  admits  that  Colestin  journeyed 
to  the  Archives  of  the  holy  Roman  Empire  at  Maintz  in  1556,  and 
that  in  157G  he  undertook  a  second  journey.  At  all  events,  Colestin 
has  given  the  world  a  notable  gathering  of  historical  papers. 

Cyprian  rests  entirely  upon  original  documentary  foundations. 
He  s«;^s,  "If  the  necessary  aptitude  and  health  had  been  mine,  this 


^Printed  in  Cyprian,  BeUagen,  p.  60. 

^Ih.  p.  85. 

'The  beginning  of  the  work  is  printed  in  Cyprian,  BeUagen,  p.  103. 

^In  F6rstemann,  Archiv,  Vol.  I. 


PREFACE  xxi 

history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  would  hardly  have  had  its  like. 
But  the  lack  of  these  qualities  and  a  journey  that  could  not  be 
postponed  in  the  midst  of  all  my  labors,  cause  me  to  be  able  to  as- 
sure only  this,  that  my  book  has  been  composed  honestly  and  dili- 
gently and  without  any  attempt  to  twist  matters  in  the  works  and 
writings,  and  with  an  efPort  to  preserve  the  mode  of  speech  of  tlie 
original  documents." 

Salig  is  the  most  voluminous  of  these  early  writers  on  our  Con- 
fessional history,  and  is  full  of  details,  some  of  more,  and  some  of 
less  value ;  but  lie  drew  from  reliable  historical  sources,  and  his 
work  is  of  permanent  value. 

Chytriius  was  of  the  manner  and  heart  of  Melanchthon,  with  the 
doctrine  of  Luther.  Cijlestin,  Wigand,  and  Cyprian  were  men  who 
defended  the  full  Lutheran  Confession.  Salig  likewise  did  so,  but 
his  sentiment  and  leanings  were  pietistic,  and  softened  toward  the 
Melanchthonian  tendencies.  Weber  was  a  determined  and  bitter 
Melanchtboniau,  thoroughly  rationalistic.  ''If  I  have  been  so  for- 
tunate," he  says,  "as  to  have  made  progress  in  research,  it  is  not  to 
be  ascribed  to  mo,  but  to  the  spirit  of  the  age.  ...  In  thus  far  my 
work  can  Ix?  regarded  as  a  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  human 
\inderstanding  (des  menschlichen  Verstandes)." 

Weber's  works,  therefore,  on  the  Confessional  principle,  invalu- 
able as  they  are,  relate  to  the  periphery.  The  weakness  of  his  gen- 
eral position  and  feeling  are  as  evident  as  are  the  values  of  the 
specific  critical  results  of  his  documentary  investigations.  TTis  con- 
clusions are  based  on  the  readings  of  texts,  rather  than  on  the 
truth  and  teachings  that  well  up  within  the  texts. 

It  was  the  Confessional  activity  leading  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord that  gave  us  Cbytrlius  and  Cole.stin.  The  second  centennial 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  gave  us  Cyprian  and  Salig,  and  Weber 
came  half  a  century  later. 

The  Nineteenth  Century  has  again  opened  to  us  the  investiga- 
tion of  originals  in  the  researches  of  Forstemann  (Archiv,  1831; 
Urhundenhuch,  1833)  and  Schirrmacher  {Brief e  unci  AMen,  1876). 
in  the  gathering  of  Luther's  Letters  by  De  Wette,  1825,  and  Enders, 
■1884,  and  in  the  constructive  efforts  of  Calinieh,  Bindseil,  Knaake, 
Kollner,  Plitt,  Zockler,  Brieger,  Kolde,  and  Tschackert. 


xxii  P  E  E  F  A  C  E 

The  massive  literatvire  of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  the  Book  d 
Concord  and  on  various  doctrinal  asi^ects  of  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sion is  too  extensive  even  to  allude  to,  and  will  be  found  in  part  in 
the  bibliographical  lists  connected  with  the  Table  of  Contents, 

Krauth's  work,  as  an  examination  and  an  active  force  in  the 
Confessional  field,  will  never  be  superseded.  To  term  it  ecclesi- 
astical in  origin  is  an  injustice.  It  was  a  long  struggle,  against 
earlier  ecclesiastical  limitations,  for  the  truth.  Though  polemic 
in  form  and  occasional  in  origin,  it  is  so  thoroughly  grounded  on 
the  sources  and  so  masterfully  elaborated  that  it  will  remain  the 
great  Confessional  classic  in  English  Lutheran  theology.  The  crit- 
ical maze  of  historical  facts  had  been  threaded  by  Krauth  years  be- 
fore he  spoke.*  Weber's  conclusions  and  work  had  been  digested  in 
detail  by  him  as  early  as  the  Fifties  (1854). 

In  1858  he  published  his  Select  Analytical  Bihliograpliy  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  in  twenty-two  pages.  In  1868  he  published 
The  Angshurg  Confession!'  His  presentation  of  the  correspondence 
of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and  of  the  utterances  of  Luther  on  the 
Confession  are  unsurpassed  to  this  day,  and,  for  brevity,  his  state- 
ment of  the  fate  of  the  German  text  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 


^  r.  Krauth's  article  in  Er.  Rev..  I.  p.  234,  Oct.  1840.  on  "The  Relation  of 
Our  Confessions  to  the  Reformation,  and  the  Importance  of  Their  Study, 
with  an  Outline  of  the  Early  History  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  This 
article  was  written  on  the  basis  of  Walch"s  I  ni  rod  net  ion  1o  the  Symholical 
llool-s,  Carpzov's  Ifiapof/c  to  the  ^i/mholicul  liookn.  Salig's  Hintoric  and 
Cyprian's  Hintoric  together  with  several  other  works  such  as  Seckendorf's 
Historia. 

"  "Literal  translation  from  the  original  Latin  with  the  most  important  addi- 
tions of  the  German  text  incorporated  :  together  with  the  general  creeds  ;  and 
an  introduction,  notes,  and  analytical  index,  Thiladelphia  Tract  and  Book 
Society  of  St.  John's  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  Lutheran  Bookstore,  807 
Vine  Street,  1868."  His  introduction  comprises  questions  on  the  nature  and 
necessity  of  creeds:  early  creeds;  Romanism  and  its  creed;  preliminaries  and 
the  preparation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  :  Luther's  works  on  the  Augs- 
burg Confession ;  absence  of  Luther  from  Augsburg ;  correspondence  with 
Luther ;  Luther's  opinion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  object  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  ;  the  presentation  of  the  Confession ;  Latin  and  German 
texts  ;  the  Augsburg  Confession  altered  ;  the  current  editions  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  ;  Latin  and  German  ;  structure  and  divisions  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession ;  the  literature  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  what  is  involved  in  the 
right  reception  of  the  Auiishiirs  Confession;  the  character  and  value  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 


P  K  E  F  A  C  E  xxiii 

unequaled."  The  positions  taken  later  in  the  Conservative  Refor- 
mation with  reference  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  are  already  ad- 
vanced here  and  fully  argued.  He  was  thus  early  a  complete  master 
of  the  facts  in  the  case  so  far  as  then  known.  His  strong  and 
solid  argument  for  the  position  that  the  Confession  was  practically 
complete,  as  the  conjoint  work  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  by  May 
22nd,  1530,  when  it  was  sent  to  Luther  for  final  ratification,  is 
found  here.  The  argument  would  be  unanswerable  were  it  not  for 
the  following  difficulties : 

(1)  It  does  not  explain  the  negotiations  of  Melanchthon  with 
Valdes. 

(2)  It  knows  nothing  of  the  recently  discovered  Xuremborg  draft 
of  the  Confession  which  seems  to  show  the  Confession's  incomplete- 
ness at  a  very  late  date;  and  which  throws  an  entirely  new  light  on 
Melanchthon's  Exordium. 

(3)  It  does  not  take  account  of  the  genetic  growth  of  the  Con- 
fession and  of  the  changes  made  as  the  situation  developed;  but 
assumes  that  Luther  and  Melanchthon  possessed  a  full  a  priori 
knowledge  of  what  exactly  was  to  be  confessed  at  Augsburg,  where- 
as the  letters  of  Luther  seem  to  show  a  lack  of  such  knowledge, 
and  an  omission  of  the  mention  of  a  previously-made  Confession. 
The  activities  of  Eck,  the  movements  of  Melanchthon,  and  our 
critical  knowledge  of  the  Nuremberg  and  other  manuscripts  seem 
to  corroborate  the  conclusions  of  Kolde,  without  however 
invalidating  the  strength  of  the  general  position  of  the  Con- 
servative Reformation. 

(4)  The  theory  of  the  Conservative  Reformation  assumes  a 
trustworthiness  and  fidelity  of  Melanchthon  toward  Luther  and  a 


"The  latter  is  to  be  found  on  pp.  503-o6.o  of  this  book,  and  r-oncludos 
as  follows : 

•'While  therefore  the  ordinary  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the 
one  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  from  which  the  current  translations 
of  the  Confession  have  been  made,  does  not  differ  in  meaning  at  all  from 
the  original  edition  of  Melanchthon,  it  is,  nevertheless,  not  so  perfect  in 
style,  and  whore  they  differ,  not  so  clear.  The  highest  critical  authority, 
then,  both  German  and  Latin,  is  that  of  Melanchthon's  own  original  editions. 

"The  current  edition  of  the  German,  and  the  earliest  edition  of  Melanch- 
thon, are  verbally  identical  in  the  largest  part  of  the  articles,  both  of  doe- 
trine  and  of  abuses.  The  only  difference  is,  that  Melanchthon's  edition  is 
occasionally  somewhat  fuller,  especially  on  the  abuses,  is  more  perfectly  par- 
allel with  the  Latin  at  a  few  points,  and  occasionally  more  finished  in  style. 
When  the  question  between  them  has  a  practical  interest,  it  is  simply  because 
Melanchthon's  edition  expresses  in  terms,  or  with  greater  clearness,  what  is 
simply  implied,  or  less  explicitly  stated  in  the  other." 


xxiv  P  E  E  F  A  C  E 

stability  in  political  temptation  which  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to 
find  corroborated  in  the  subsequent  life  of  Melanchthon. 

(5)  The  position  of  the  Conservative  Reformation  assumes  a 
centrality  at  the  Diet  of  Aug-sburg  from  the  start  for  the  Confes- 
sion of  the  Evangelical  doctrine,  which  Luther  would  indeed  have 
liked  to  have  seen,  but  which  probably  did  not  fully  exist  in  ad- 
vance, in  either  the  mind  of  the  Emperor,  the  Elector,  or  Melanch- 
thon; but  which  the  Providence  of  God  forced  upon  the  Diet. 

Yet  any  modification  in  the  position  taken  by  the  Conservative 
Reformation,  it  must  be  rerL.embered,  casts  no  further  credit  upon 
Melanchthonianism  and  takes  no  further  credit  from  the  ways  and 
judgment  of  Luther.  It  upholds  the  Confession,  not  because  it  was 
the  product  of  either  Luther  or  Melanchthon,  but  because  the  hand 
of  God  clearly  and  actually  made  it  what  it  was,  and  is,  and  will 
ever  remain  hereafter. 

The  most  elaborate  chapter  in  the  work  now  luider  the  reader's 
eye,  on  "The  Hand  of  God  in  the  Formation  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession," was  written  and  in  type,  before  the  author  consulted,  in 
fact,  at  that  time  recalled,  Kravith's  elaborate  and  accurate  "Chron- 
icle of  the  Augsburg  Confession,''  1878,  which  gi'ew  out  of  his 
controversy  with  Dr.  Brown  following  on  a  discussion  at  the  First 
Free  Lutheran  Diet.  The  annalistic  or  diary  form  in  the  chapter 
of  the  present  writer  was  not  .suggested  by  the  work  of  Dr.  Ivrauth. 
The  method  and  purpose  of  the  two  writings  are  different :  Dr. 
Xrauth's  paper  i.s  an  argument  to  prove  a  single  point,  while  the 
chapter  of  the  i)resent  work  essays  to  be  a  general  historical  study 
of  the  situation  at  Augsburg,  from  its  background,  and  in  its  larger 
range  of  activities  as  affairs  develoi>ed  from  day  to  day. 

The  two  studies  are  independent,  and  the  agreement  that  they 
manifest  on  many  points  is  a  striking  testimony  of  fact.  The 
differences  are  to  be  explained  first,  by  the  fact  that  Dr.  Krauth's 
object  was  documentary  rather  than  historical ;  and,  secondly,  by 
the  fact  that  he  could  not  avail  himself  of  discoveries  which  have 
been  made  since  his  death.  ITis  approach  on  certain  lines  of  indirect 
evidence  toward  what  is  now  known  is  remarkable.  The  only  uses 
made  of  Dr.  Krauth's  Chronicle  are  references  or  quotations  in 
several  places  for  the  reader's  convenience,  and  the  citation  from 
Melanehthou's  Latin  Preface  of  1500. 


P  K  E  r  A  C  E  XXV 

The  preseoit  work  is  a  broad  attempt  to  do  justice  to  the  Confes- 
sional Principle  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  in  the  midst  of  a  feel- 
ing or  spirit  of  our  time  which  does  it  injustice.  The  work  has 
been  written  unexpectedly  and  most  reluctantly.  It  is  devoted  to  the 
true  Church  wherever  and  under  whatever  form  she  may  be  found. 
It  desires  to  set  forth  more  fully  this  Church's  comprehensive  and 
vitalizing  grasp  of  the  Confessional  Principle  of  Cliristianity,  in 
the  belief  that  our  Confession  comes  direct  from  Christ  in  the 
Word  of  Scripture,  as  the  answer  and  testimony  of  Faith  unto  its 
Lord,  and  unto  all  the  world;  and  in  the  assurance  that  this  Faith 
will  ever  enlarge  its  circles  of  contact,  and  that  it  hohls  in  its  em- 
brace the  strength  of  the  past,  the  potency  of  the  present,  and  the 
hope  of  the  future. 

The  practical  aim  is  an  effort  to  make  clear  to  the  judgment  and 
conscience  of  English  Lutherans  that  the  chief  nuitter  Ix^'ore  the 
Lutheran  Church  today,  as  a  Church  of  the  living  Faith,  is  not  its 
relation  to  an  outside  Christianity,  however  timely  or  pressing — or 
even  embarrassing — that  may  seem  to  be;  but  that  the  great  and 
immediate  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  learn  to  know,  and  to  more 
fully  develop  her  own  highest  principle  and  character,  as  the  bearer 
of  Word  and  Sacrament. 

What  she  is  in  her  own  heart  and  to  her  own  children — as  a 
mother  of  faith,  strength,  life  and  character, — is  her  first  and  chief 
object  of  knowledge,  and  is  not  to  be  determined  by  any  supposed 
ideas  of  what  she  ought  be  to  her  neighbor.  On  the  contraiy,  what 
she  is  to  the  denominations  around  her,  in  her  second  command- 
ment of  love,  "like  unto  the  first,"  will  follow  from  what  she  is  in 
her  own  heart;  as  does  the  love  of  God  in  the  first  commandment 
determine  the  love  to  our  neighbor  in  the  second  commandment. 
The  more  true  her  children  are  to  her  own  self,  the  less  false  will 
they  be  to  others  round  about  her. 

We  shall  one  day  see  that  our  own  faith's  most  secret  conviction 
is  nobler  than  what  the  world  proclaims  from  the  housetops;  that 
"the  most  private  is  the  most_ public  energy";  that  it  is  an  inver- 
sion, as  Thoreau  says,  to  dig  common  silver  ore  in  cartloads,  while 
we  neglect  to  work  our  mines  of  gold,  known  only  to  ourselves,  far 
up  in  the  Sierras,  where  we  pulled  up  a  bush  in  our  mountain-walk 
with  God,  and  saw  the  rare  and  glittering  treasure.  "Let  us  return 
thither.    Let  it  be  the  price  of  our  freedom  to  make  that  known." 


xxvi  P  E  E  F  A  C  E 

The  path  traversed  by  thi^  book,  though  it  everywhere  crosses 
familiar  regions,  and  frequently  takes  advantage  of  well-trodden 
roads,  has  been  difficult,  and  has  required  much  pioneer  work.  It 
will  he  easy  to  discover  faults  in  plan  and  detail,  to  criticise  the 
compression  of  such  a  range  of  subject  matter  into  one  volume,  or 
to  point  out  the  undue  and  repeated  elaboration  of  certain  points. 
It  may  be  possible  to  say  that  the  work  contains  nothing  new.  We 
have  feared  lest  it  be  too  original.  At  all  events,  it  will  bear  com- 
parison with  its  predecessors  in  the  English  field  on  this  point. 

The  position  taken  is  positive  and  the  work  is  structural  in  pur- 
pose. It  has  nothing  in  common  with  any  polemic  press  of  the 
hour,  and  its  authors — so  far  as  we  recall — have  not  spoken  one 
word  on  current  controversial  issues  discussed  with  much  anima- 
tion in  ecclesiastical  papers  during  the  last  year  or  two,  but  have 
been  silent  up  to  this  moment.  The  volume  does  not  deal  with  or 
mention  any  contemporary  synodical  or  ecclesiastical  complications. 
So  far  as  we  know,  the  name  of  any  of  the  General  Lutheran 
Bodies  in  America  does  not  occur,  except  in  titles.  Our  chief  con- 
cern is  for  the  Lutheran  Eaith  and  for  its  Confession,  rather  than 
for  ecclesiastical  situations  arising  out  of  the  present  moment,  loyal 
as  we  may  be,  and  are,  to  that  specific  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
to  which  our  heart  and  energies  have  been  devoted. 

Inasmuch  as  the  object  of  this  work  is  constructive,  we  have  en- 
deavored not  to  use  the  polemic  form,  though  the  handling  of 
materials  liable  at  any  m.oment  to  spontaneous  combustion,  renders 
it  possible  that  we  have  struck  flame  without  so  intending.  Should 
the  Lord  grant  us  the  grace  of  silence  under  stricture,  the  sparks 
on  our  side  ought  not  enkindle  into  conflagration. 

This  book  is  the  first  presentation  to  the  English  j^ublic  of  the 
ripe  fruits  of  the  studies  of  the  great  Luther  scholar,  Professor 
Kolde,  a  descendant  of  Chancellor  Briick,  on  the  Confessions,  as 
found  in  his  Introductions  to  the  new  German  Book  of  Concord, 
together  with  his  particular  discoveries  as  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. We  also  reproduce  the  first  and  only  English  translation  of 
the  oldest  known  Form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  is  the 
document  that  has  settled  a  great  many  things  since  Dr.  Krauth 
wrote  the  Conservative  Reformation.  The  work  before  the  reader, 
further,  contains  a  thorough  and  searching  study  of  Melanchthon 


P  K  E  F  A  C  E  xxvii 

and  Melanclithoniaiiisni.  showing  in  detail  that  the  spirit  of  com- 
promise issues,  in  history,  in  disaster  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  volume  contains  the  following  essays  of  Kolde,  translated 
for  tlie  first  time  into  English : — 

(1)  The  Introduction  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  from  the  new 
Miiller  edition  of  the  Symbolical  Books.  Chapter  XV. 

(2)  Melanchthon's    Unsuccessful   Attempts   as    a   Diplomatist, 

from  "Die  altcste  Eedaktion  der  Augsburger  Konfession."    Chapter  XVI. 

(3)  Kolde's  Discussion  of  the  Oldest  Known  Redaction  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  from  the  same  work  (Kolde's  discussion  of 
detailed  phrases  is  omitted).  Chapter  XVII. 

(4)  The  Oldest  Known  Redaction  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 

as  given  in  Kolde's  work.  Chapter  XVIII. 

(5)  The  Editions  and  Manuscripts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
(this  is  a  continuation  of  Kolde's  Introduction  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession),  from  the  new  Miiller  edition  of  the  Symbolical 
Books.  Chapter  XXI. 

(6)  The  Origin  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  This  chapter  orig- 
inally was  a  translation  of  Kolde's  Introduction  to  the  Formula  in 
the  new  Miiller  edition,  but  was  subsequently  enlarged  and  enriched 

by  us  from  other  sources.  Chapter  XXVI. 

(7)  The  Booh  of  Concord.    This  chapter  is  a  translation  from 

Kolde's  Introduction  in  Miiller.  Chapter  XXXVI. 

Several  of  these  Introductions  of  Kolde  were  published  originally 
in  The  Lutheran  Church  Review.  To  them  there  was  to  have  been 
added  an  Introduction  pointing  out  the  relevance  of  the  essays  to 
the  American  Confession  situation.  Then  came  the  suggestion  of 
two  Philadelphia  laymen  to  interweave  Prof.  Kolde's  writings  in 
a  logical  treatment  of  the  complete  subject,  resulting  in  this 
volume. 

In  type  for  a  year  and  a  half,  and,  except  a  small  portion,  in 
plate  form  for  more  than  a  'year,  this  volume  long  lacked  only  the 
reading  of  about  a  luuidred  pages  of  proof,  and  some  processes  of 
veriiication,  to  bring  it  to  the  point  of  publication.  The  delay  in 
its  issue  has  been  due  to  several  serious  illnesses,  dating  from  last 
spring  a  year  ago.  and  to  the  extraordinary  pres.sure  of  official 
duties  and  of  affairs  in  the  Seminars'  at  Philadelphia. 


xxviii  PREFACE 

Meantime,  there  lias  appeared  an  important  work  in  the  same'; 
field  minutely  discussing  the  Reformation  Era  from  a  historico-- 
confessional  point  of  view,  and  for  a  purpose  almost  the  reverse i 
of  that  of  thi.s  work.  The  object  of  this  work  is  to  confirm  the 
strength  of  the  Church  in  her  Confessions:  the  eii'ect  of  the  other 
work  is  to  imsettle  the  Church  in  her  Confessions  and  to  free  her 
from  the  inference  of  an  abiding  historical  confessional  principle. 
The  new  work  on  "The  Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran 
Church"  is  a  monument  to  the  pains-taking  research  of  its  author, 
and  opens  up  a  greater  wealth  of  documentary  detail,  valviable  for 
present-day  investigation,  than  is  probably  to  be  foimd  at  this  mo- 
ment in  any  volume  in  the  English  language.  And  if  the  temper 
of  the  author  were  as  broad  and  undogmatic  and  tolerant  as  is  the 
position  for  which  he  is  contending,  and  if  his  nse  of  the  documents 
were  as  scholarly  9^  his  knowledge  of  them,  the  work  would  take 
its  place  as  a  standard  authority  in  the  Church,  to  be  respected, 
even  on  the  position  which  it  occupies.  But  in  this  age  it  is  im- 
possible to  maintain  uncritically  the  dogma  of  Biblical  infallibility, 
in  the  same  breath  with  a  loose,  critical  and  destructive  dogma  of 
confessional  fallibility.  The  quill  that  bristles  against  the  Confes- 
sions, cannot  successfully  spread  its  shelter  over  their  Source. 

We  not  only  believe  that  the  fundamental  position  held  by  this 
book  will  prove  to  have  been  a  concession  of  historical  Christianity 
to  modernism,  but  we  believe  that  the  paradox  manifest  in  its 
spirit,  namely,  that  of  a  dogmatic  polemic  against  polemic  dog- 
matics, is  a  house  divided  against  itself.  Since  the  work  is  looked 
up  to  as  bringing  the  new  discoveries  in  historical  research  to  bear 
upon  the  disputed  points  in  Lutheran  confessional  writings,  v/e 
should  not  be  doing  our  duty  to  onr  readers-  if  we  failed  to  take 
some  notice  of  the  positions  assumed  by  this  latest  investigation, 
inasmuch  as  the  delay  in  our  own  work,  which  would  normally 
have  preceded  the  other  in  its  issue,  has  rendered  a  brief  discussion 
of  this  new  material  possible. 

In  our  Church  in  America,  it  has,  for  the  last  three  or  four 
decades,  been  customary  to  assume  either  one  of  two  confessional 
positions,  namely,  that  the  Book  of  Concord  is  the  confessional 
treasure  of  the  Church,  or,  if  not,  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  itself  is  the  Church's  sufficient  and  generic  confessional  treasure. 
The  new  book  we  are  criticising  not  only  combats  the  former  posi- 


PREFACE  xxix 

tion  with  all  intensity,  but  in  view  of  more  recent  discoveries  con- 
cerning the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  in  a  sense,  as  their  herald, 
it  assumes  the  startling  attitude  of  combating  the  generic  perfec- 
tion of  the  Augsburg  instrument  as  a  Lutheran  Confession.  It 
goes  so  far  as  to  term  the  Augsburg  Confession  inadequate,  to 
characterize  it  as  defective,  as  misrepresenting  the  Lutheran  party 
at  Augsburg,  and  as  untrutliful.  This  position,  while  it  sacrifices 
the  Augsburg  Confession  as  the  final  and  adequate  basis  of  a  gen- 
eric Lutheranism,  and  adjudges  it  as  Romanizing  in  outlook,  never- 
theless is  of  immeasurable  help  to  its  author  in  several  respects. 
First  of  all,  it  provides  a>  ground  to  stand  upon  in  view  of  recent 
historical  discoveries.  Secondly,  if  the  original  Confession  was  so 
imperfect  and  untruthful,  this  fact  surely  frees  Melanchthon  from 
blame  in  his  numerous  attempts  to  "improve"  it  in  the  variata. 
It  also  establishes  the  presumption  that  a  Confession  framed  in 
any  emergency  in  the  past  is  no  longer  binding  on  a  higher  and 
more  Scripturally  enlightened  present.  Hence  it  frees  the  Luth- 
eran Church  of  the  present  from  any  inner  historical  adherence  to 
the  Confessions  of  the  past.  Lutheranism  thus  freed  from  the 
burdensome  forms  and  substance  of  its  own  historical  development, 
except  in  the  one  main  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  can  con- 
nect directly  with  the  real  and  infallible  rule  of  Faith,  the  Scrip- 
ture; and  thus  the  Lutheran  center,  directly  grounded  in  Scripture, 
can  be  co-ordinated  with  a  modern  apprehension  of  Christianity. 
T"n fortunately  for  the  author,  in  this  position,  his  very  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  on  which,  in  rejecting  so  much,  he  grounds 
himself,  is  vitiated  by  a  synergism  so  obvious  that  a  generation  or 
two  of  progressive  thinking  along  his  lines  will  perhaps  sufiice  to 
play  the  whole  position  into  the  hands  of  a  radical  Protestantism. 

We  hope  to  have  placed  before  the  English  reader,  especially  in 
Chapter  XIX,  a  more  natural  arrangement  of  historical  materials, 
— the  documentary  and  epistolary  background  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession, — for  the  first  time  appearing  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, than  is  to  be  found  in  any  English  work,  for  a  study, 
at  first  hand,  of  the  sources  of  the  Reformation  History.  This  re- 
fers especially  to  the  translations  of  documents  and  of  the  Luthcr- 
Melanchthon  correspondence,  difficult  to  reproduce  in  its  organic 
relationship. 


XXX  PREFACE 

Letters,  written  as  they  are  on  the  inspiration  of  the  moment, 
and  without  premeditation,  reveal  the  mind  and  heart.  It  is  on 
these  records  of  the  moment,  as  interpretative  of  the  more  formal 
documents,  that  we  lay  some  stress  in  attempting-  to  give  an  in- 
sight into  the  Confession  made  at  Augsburg. 

The  value  of  Luther's  letters  was  recognized  early.  A  collection 
of  four  of  them  was  printed  in  1530.  In  1546,  the  year  of  Luther's 
death,  Cruciger  issued  eight  letters,  and  this  number  was  increased 
later.     Then  came  Aurifaber,  Chytraeus,  Colestin. 

In  the  Eighteenth  Century  came  the  eix)chal  labor.?  of  Walch, 
Stroebel  (1780),  and  of  Schiitze  (3  vols.,  1784).  In  182G  De  Wette 
issued  his  first  five  volumes  of  Luther's  Letters,  with  the  bibli- 
ography of  each  of  them. 

In  1884  Enders  issued  the  first  volume  of  Luther's  Briefwechsel 
running  into  the  tenth  volume  in  1903.  Ivostlin  and  Kolde  (1884), 
published  letters  and  extracts;  and  Buchwald  issued  91  letters  in 
1898. 

While  our  volume  was  in  preparation,  or  shortly  before,  Mar- 
garet Currie,  of  Glasgow,  published  an  interesting  volume,  "The 
Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  Selected  and  Translated."  The  volume 
came  too  late,  except  in  one  or  two  instances,  for  use  in  this  work. 
It  does  not  contain  Eeplies  written  to  Luther,  and  the  translator, 
in  her  history  of  the  letters,  has  no  proper  conception  of  the  inner 
history  on  which  the  Reformation  pivoted  itself.  But  the  thought 
of  Luther  is  reproduced  in  excellent  and  natural  English.  Currie" 
gives  perhaps  a  score  of  the  letters  we  have  translated  in  this 
volume. 

On  controverted  points,  as  a  rule,  we  have  preferred  to  state 
situations  and  arguments  in  the  words  of  writers  who  might  have 
weight  with  readers  that  differ  from  us.  This  is  the  reason  for 
the  frequent  quotation  of  such  a  standard  American  Work  as 
Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  and  for  an  apparent  preference 
given  Melanchthonian  rather  than  rigidly  Lutheran  authorities. 
Their  Avords  will  probably  be  conceded  as  unbiased,  or  at  least  not 
biased  in  favor  of  the  position  of  this  book,  in  quarters  where  the 
citation  from  strict  Lutheran  authors  might  not  be  welcome.    We 

"Miss  Currfe's  work  contains  500  letters  from  1507-1546,  about  one-fifth 
of  the  total  number  preserved. 


P  E  E  F  A  C  E  xxxi 

believe  it  will  be  found  that  justice  has  been  done  to  all  authors, 
and  that  no  language  or  spirit  has  been  attributed  to  them  which 
they  tliemselves  would  not  corroborate  as  genuine. 

Chapter  xxxvii  is  a  slight  sketch  of  the  development  of  con- 
fessional thinking  from  the  day  of  the  Book  of  Concord  to  the 
present  time;  written  under  reaction  from  the  widely  prevalent 
unionistic  view  expressed  by  Schaff  in  his  "Creeds  of  Christen- 
dom," and  as  a  thread  of  connection  between  the  Reformation  and 
the  present  day.  If  it  were  to  be  re-written  today,  we  might  possibly 
he  tempted  to  a  full  presentation  of  the  confessional  development 
of  the  nineteenth  century  in  the  light  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  in- 
cluding the  movements  from  Harms  to  (Hase,  Meyer,  Kollner), 
Paidelbach,  Guericke,  Eichter,  Stahl.  Harless,  Sartorius,  Twesten, 
Ilengstenberg,  Caspar!,  Kliefoth,  Philippi,  (Kahnis,  v.  Hoffmann), 
Lohe,  to  Luthard,  Frank  and  Zockler,  on  the  one  side,  and  to 
(Marheineke),  Bretschneider,  Johannsen,  (Hepi)e),  and  Dorner 
on  the  other.  However,  such  a  treatment  would  not  only  diverge 
from  the  line  of  connection  running  through  the  present  work;  but 
would  also  have  been  an  embarrassment  to  this  book  in  the 
voluminousness  of  its  substance. 

Much  credit  is  due  to  the  Eev.  George  M.  Scheidy  for  a 
general,  vigilant  and  invaluable  supervision  of  the  details  of 
this  work,  especially  during  the  time  of  the  writer's  illness,  for 
many  suggested  improvements  in  style,  for  translation  of  certain 
documents,  for  careful  reading  of  manuscript  and  proofs,  and  for 
arduous  and  continued  general  assistance  without  which  this  work 
could  not  have  been  issued.  Acknowledgment  is  also  due  to  the 
Eev.  J.  r.  M.  Brown  for  the  preparation  of  the  Index,  to  the 
Eev.  J.  J.  Cressman  and  the  Eev.  F.  P.  Mayser,  D.D.,  for  the  loan 
of  rare  and  valuable  works,  to  the  Eev.  F.  B.  Clausen  for  work  in 
the  libraries  of  New  York  City,  and  for  verification  of  citations; 
to  the  Eev.  "Luther  D.  Eeed  for  the  use  of  several  important  vol- 
umes from  the  Krauth  Memorial  Library;  to  the  Eev.  J.  J.  Cress- 
man  for  verification ;  and  to  the  Eev.  Dr.  W.  L.  Hunton,  and  Mr. 
C.  B.  Opp,  for  help  afforded  in  many  ways. 

The  book  as  a  wliole  stands  or  falls  as  it  agrees  or  disagrees  with 
the  Word  of  God.  If  it  is  based  on  the  Word,  and  is  a  witness 
thereto,  the   Church  cannot  be  dislodged  from  the  position  here 


xxxii  P  K  E  F  A  C  E 

taken.  The  faith  which  believes,  and  therefore  saves ;  which  believes, 
and  therefore  confesses;  which  believes,  and  therefore  examines, 
which  believes,  and  therefore  testifies,  and  transmits  and  npholds 
the  testimony  dear  to  it;  which  believes,  and  acts  because  it  lives 
in  its  belief:  this  faith  in  which  heart  and  voice  and  work  unite, 
because  one  and  the  same  Spirit  fills  them  all,  is  irresistible  in  the 
Ohurch,  and  is  the  victoiy  that  overeometh  the  world. 


Qlontentfi 


PAGE 

'BOOfe      I.— Cf)e  l^ature  of  tl)e  Cljri^tian 

Confe^^efional  principle 9-92 

"BOOfl  II. — ^^)c  i^iflitorical  Uli^e  anli  2Dc^ 
\3clopmcnt,  in  ar()ri^tianitp,  of  tl)e  €on^ 
fesf^ionai  principle 93-162 

T300fe  III.— Cfje  l^aturc,  <0rigin  anH  J^iief^ 
torical  2Debelopment  of  t^e  Hutfjeran 
Confcfii.i^ional  principle 163-839 

1.  ^rior  to  the  Augsburg  (tanfeaaian. 

2.  (El]P  Augalturg  (CnnfMHtnn. 

3.  (Eanspquput  Mpan  ti\e  Augaburg  (UanfraaUitt. 

4.  (Ttir  JFormula  of  (fJanrorli. 

'BOOfe  IV.— A  ^^artial  ^Ipplication  of  tfje 
ilutf)ccan  ConfCjBf^ional  ^principle  to 
^tmerican  Contiition^  in  tfje  €tDentietl) 
Centucp      840-943 


Contents; 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  A  COXFESSIONAL  FOUNDA- 
TION. 

Pages  1-5. 

CHAPTER   XL 
THE  DISCUSSION. 

Pages  5-9, 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  NATURE  OF  CONFESSIONS. 

Pages  9-18. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  NEED  OF  CONFESSIONS. 

Pages  18-27< 

CHAPTER  V. 
DO  CONFESSIONS  CONSTRICT? 

Pages  27-38. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
SHOULD  CONFESSIONS  CONDEMN? 

Pages  38-54. 

XXXV 


xvi  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    VII. 
WHAT  GIVES  THE  CONFESSIOX  VALIDITY? 

Pages  54-78. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
DO  CONFESSIONS  BIND  ? 

Pages  78-93. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  RISE  OF  THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE 
IN  THE  CHURCH. 

Pages  93-104. 

CHAPTER   X. 

THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    CONFESSIONAL 
PRINCIPLE  IN  THE  CHURCH. 

Pages  104-117. 

CHAPTER  XL 

THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  IN  THE  AUGS- 
BURG CONFESSION. 

Pages  117-144. 

CHAPTER    XIL 

THE   HISTORY  OF   THE   CONFESSIONAL   PRIN- 
CIPLE IN  THE  CHURCH. 

Pages  144-156. 

CHAPTER   XIIL 

THE     CONFESSIONAL     USE     OF     THE     WORD 
"SYMBOL." 

Pages  156-163. 


CONTENTS  xxxvii 

CHAPTER    XIV. 
THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION". 

Pages  163-168. 

CHAPTER   XV. 
THE  ORIGIN  OE  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

Pages  168-192. 

CHAPTER    XVI. 

HELANCHTHON'S     UNSUCCESSFUL     ATTEMPTS 

AS  A  DIPLOMATIST. 

Pages  192-221. 

CHAPTER   XVn. 

THE  DISCOVERY  OF  THE  FIRST  KNO^YN  DRAFT 

OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

Pages  221-251. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

THE  OLDEST  KNOWN  FORM  OF  THE  AUGSBURG 

CONFESSION. 

Pages  251-283. 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

THE  HAND  OF  GOD  IN  THE  FORMATION  OF  THE 

AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

Pages  283-436. 

CHAPTER   XX. 
THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  PRESERVED  UN- 
ALTERED. 

Pages  436-522. 

CHAPTER    XXL 

HISTORY  OF  THE  EDITIONS  AND  MANUSCRIPTS 

OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

Pages  622-570. 


xxxviii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    XXII. 

FROTESTA^^TISM  UNDER  THE  AUGSBURG  CON- 
FESSION TO  THE  DEATH  OF  LUTHER. 

Pages  570-587. 

CHAPTER    XXIII. 

PROTESTANTISM  FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  LUTHER 

TO  THE  DEATH  OF  MELANCHTHON 

AND  TO  THE  DISINTEGRATION 

OF  LUTHERANISM. 

Pages  587-609. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

MELANCHTHON  AND   THE  MELANCHTHONIAN 
PRINCIPLE  TO  1535. 

Pages  609-637. 

CHAPTER    XXV. 

THE  NEED  OF  CONCORDIA  REALIZED,  AND  ITS 
FORMULATION  ATTEMPTED. 

Pages  637-641. 


CHAPTER  XXVL 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD. 

Pages  641-661. 

CHAPTER  XXVIL 
HOW  THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD  WAS  IN- 
TRODUCED. 

Pages  661-681. 

CHAPTER  XXVIIL 

IS  THE  FOR.A[ULA  OF  CONCORD  A  CONFESSION? 

THE  NEGATIVE  ANSWERS. 

Pages  681-700. 


CONTENTS  xxxix 

CHAPTER   XXIX. 
THE  AXSWER  OF  A  PROVIDEXTIAL  ORIGIX. 

Pages  700-717. 

CHAPTER   XXX. 

THE  ANSWER   TO   THE   CRITICISMS   MADE   OX 

THE  MOTIVES  AND  MEX. 

Pages  717-729. 

CHAPTER   XXXI. 
THE  ANSWER  OF  THE  OUTER  FORM. 

Pages  729-746. 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 
THE  ANSWER  OF  THE  DOCTRINES  AND  SUB- 
JECT MATTER. 

Pages  746-770. 

CHAPTER   XXXIII. 
THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

Pages  770-817. 

CHAPTER   XXXIV. 
THE  CONCORDIA  IS  THE  CHURCH'S  GREAT  CON- 
FESSION OF  CHRIST. 

Pages  817-821. 

CHAPTER    XXXV. 

WHAT    THE    FORMULA    ACCOMPLISHED    AS    A 

LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

Pages  821-832. 

CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  CONCORD. 

Pages  832-840. 


xl  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

FROM  THE  BOOK  OF  COXCORD  TO  THE  PRES- 
ENT DAY. 

Pages  840-859. 

CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    COXCORD    AXD    HISTORICAL 
LUTHERAXIS^r  IX  AMERICA. 

Pages  859-874. 

CHAPTER    XXXIX. 

THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  COXCORD  AXD  AMERICAX  PROTEST- 

AXTISM. 

Pages  874-891. 

CHAPTER   XL. 

THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 
OF  COXCORD  AXD  CHRISTIAN  CO- 
OPERATION. 

Pages  891-910. 

CHAPTER   XLL 

THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PRIXCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  COXCORD  AXD  THE  BROTHERHOOD 

OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

Pages- 910-923. 

CHAPTER  XLII. 

THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PRIXCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  COXCORD  AXD  THE  FUTURE  OF  THE 

CHURCH  IN  AMERICA. 

Pages  923- 


€onttnt6 

Witi)  ^nalp£fis(  anti  i@ii)liograp()p 

Chapter  L 

WHAT  IS  THE  QUESTION? 

the  Confessions 

and  Union 

in  the  Twentieth  Century 

Harms,  Das  slnd  die  95  Thesen  oder  Strelts&tze  Dr.  Martin  Luthera, 
theuren  Andenkens.  Zum  besonderen  Abdruck  besorgt  u.  mit  andem  95  Sat- 
een,   als    mlt    elner    TJebersetzung    aus    1517    In    1817    begleltet.      Claus    Harms, 

Kiel.      1817. Rudelbach,   Ref.    Luth.    u.    Union.    1839. Harnack,   Die   Luth. 

Klrche  im  Llchte  d.    Geschlcht.    1855. Rudelbarh,   Die   Zelchen  d.    Zelt.   inn. 

d.    Ev.    Luth.    Klrche.     1S57. StabI,   Die    Luth.    Kirche   u.    d.    Union.      2d    ed. 

1861. Thomas,  Union  Luth.  Kirch,  u.  Stahl.  1860. Fiwt  Free  Luth- 
eran Diet  in  America.     Philadelphia,  Dec.   25-28,   1877.     J.  Fred.   Smith.   1878. 

Second  Free  Lutheran  Diet  In  America,  Philadelphia,  Nov.   5-7,  18  78. 

Luth.  Pub.  Society,  Lutheran  Bookstore,  1879. The  First  General  Con- 
ference of  Lutherans  in  America,   Dec.   27-29,  1898.    General  Coun.   Pub.  Board, 

Luth.   Pub.   Society,   1899. The  Second  General  Conference  of  I^utherans 

in  America,  Philadelphia,  Apr.  1-3,  1902,  Newberry,  S.  C.  Luth.  Pub.  Board, 
1904. T  h  e  Third  General  Conference  of  Lutherans  in  America.  Pitts- 
burg,   Apr.     5-7,    1904.       Columbia,     S.    C.       United    Synod    Pub.     Co.     1905. 

Barrows,  The  Parliament  of  Religions. Proceedings  of  the  Religious  Educa- 
tion Association.  First  Convention,  Feb.  10-12,  1903.  Chicago.  1903 — —Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America.  First  Meeting,  Phil- 
adelphia,   1908.    The   Revell   Press,   New  York.  .  .  .  p.    1 

Chapter  II. 

HOW  IS  THE  QUESTION  TO  BE  DISCUSSED? 

from  the  Centre,  and 

not  touching  subscription,  name,  party,  or  technical  acceptance 
but  as  to  the  church's  will  to  stand  on  her  complete  Faith 
there  is  such  a  Faith,  not  merely  documentary 

Kliefoth,    Eine    Elnleitung    in    die    Dogmengesch,     1839. Thomasius,    Das 

Bekenntniss  der  ev.-luth.   Kirche   in   der  Konsequenz  seines  Princips.    1848. 

Plitt,    Elnleitung    in    die    Augustana.    1867-1868. The    Distinctive    Doctrines 

and  Usages  of  the  General  Bodies  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 
the   United   States.    1893.        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  p.    5 

Chapter  III. 

WHAT  AEE  CONFESSIONS? 

Scripture  As.similated  and  Pulsating  in  the  church 
Scripture  Condensed  into  public  standards 
the  common  Principles  of  the  church's  faith 

xli 


xlii  CONTENTS 

the  common  Framework  0/  the  church's  doctrine 
the  common  Mark  of  the  cnurch's  truth 
the  common  Flag  of  the  church's  loyalty 

Schlatter,  Der  Glaube  Jm  N.   T.   2   aufl.   1895. Beyschlag,   Neutest.   Theol. 

2    aufl.    1896. Kunze,   Glaubensregel,    hell.    Schrift    u.    Taufbekenntnlss,    1899. 

HofUng,  De  Symbolor.  nature,  necessitate,  auctorltate  atque  usu.  Eri.   1835. 

Sartorius,    Ueber    die    Nothwendigkeit    u.    Verblndlichkeit    d.    Klrch-Glau- 

bens-bekenntnlsses.      Stuttgart.    1845. Philippi,   Die   Notwendlgkelt  und   Ver- 
blndlichkeit   des    Kirchlichen    Bekenntnisses.    18S0.  .  .  .  P-     9 

Chapter  IV. 

DOES  THE  CHUKCH  NEED  CONFESSIONS? 

the  Value  of  creeds 

the  great  Reality  beneath  the  church  confession 

the  Apostolic  confession 

the  Use  of  confessions 

they  come  in  Historical  form — this  is  not  a  Barrier 

they  Spring  forth  under  Pressure 

are  Born,  not  made 

do  not  Hem  the  church  In 

the  More  creeds  the  Better 

do  not  Crush  independent  thought 

are  fitted  to  specific  Needs 

Carpzov,  Isagoge.   1675,  pp.   4.   5  and  7. Hofling,  De  Symbolor.  natur.  ne- 

cesslt.    auctor.    atque    usu    ErI.    1835. Sartorius,   Ueber    die    Nothwendtgk.    u. 

Verbindlichk.    d.    Kirch.    Glaubens-bekenntn.    1845. Miiller,    Die    Symbolischen 

Bucher,    1848,    3d   ed.,    1869.    Hist. -theol.    Einl.    I. Guericke,   Allgem.    Chrlstl. 

Symbolik,   1839,    3.   Aufl.    1861. Sohaff,   The   Creeds   of  Christendom,   4th   ed., 

1890.  .........  p.     18 

Chapter  V. 
DO  CONFESSIONS  CONSTRICT,  OR  CONSERVE? 

the  confessional  principle  said  to  be  Over-Emphasized 

back  to  the  Simplicity  of  Christ 

back  to  the  Bible  as  a  creed 

Why  the  Bible  can  Not  be  a  creed 

the  creed  is  the  Word  of  God  Condensed  and  Pointed 

a  Summary  and  just  Exhibition  of  God's  Word 

the  Bible  is  the  Rule  of  faith,  the  creed  is  its  Confession 

to  Judge  by  creed  is  not  to  condemn,  but  to  assign  Values 

a  low  Valuation  of  creeds  follows  a  low  valuation  of  Christ. 

Eberhard,    1st   die   Augsb.    Confess,    eine   Glaubensvorschr.,    etc.    1795-97. 

Kiillner,    Die    gute    Saehe    d.    Luth.    Sj'mbole.    Gottlngen.    1847. Krauth,    The 

Conservative  Reformation.  1871. Schmauk,  The  Right  of  Freedom  of  In- 
quiry in   The   Lutheran   Church,   Luth.   Ch.    Rev.   XXII,   51-63. 

In   General:   Newman,  Grammar  of  Assent,   1870. Martineau,   The  Seat   of 

Authority     in     Religion,     1891. Balfour,     Foundations     of    Belief,     1901. 

Oman,   VLslon   and   Authority,    1902. Forrest,    Authority   of   Christ,    1906. 

Watson,    The    Philosophical    Basis    of    Religion,    1907. Kattenbuscb,    Confes- 


CONTENTS  xliii 

■lon«-kunde. Kirn,  Glaube  und  Geschichte. Sabatier,  Religion  of  Author- 
ity and  the  Religion  of  the  Spirit. Coe,  The  Religion  of  a  Mature  Mind. 

Stanton,    The    Place    of   Authority    in    Matters   of   Religious   Belief. Elik-ott, 

Chrlstus     Comprobator. Strong:,     Authority     in     the     Church. Fairbairn, 

Catholicism,    Roman    and    Anglican. Orr,    The    Christian    View    of    God    and 

the    World. VVaoe,   The    Foundations    of   Faith.  .  .  .  p.    2  7 

Chapter  VI. 
SHOULD  CONFESSIONS  CONDEMN  AND  EXCLUDE? 

principles  that  militate  again.st  the  Enforcement  of  confes- 
sional authority. 

the  church  of  the  pure  Word  does  not  abrogate  the  use  of 
Discipline 

Hofling:,    Grundsatze    evangelisch-lutherlscher    KIrchenverfassung,    Erl.    1852. 

Harnack,    Prakti.sche    Theologie,     Erl.     1S77,     1878,     vol.     II. Galli,    Die 

Lutherischen     und     Calvinischen     Kirchenstrafen,     Breslau.     1879. Waltber, 

Die   rechte   Gestalt   einer   vom   Staate   unabhangigen    Evangelisch-Lutherischen 
Ortsgemeinde,    St.    Louis,    Mo.    1864.  .  .  .  .  .  p.    88 

Chapter  VII. 
WHAT  GIVES  THE  CONFESSION  VALIDITY? 

a  confession  is  Testimony 

neither  Agreement,  nor  Contract 

its  aim  is  Instruction,  not  Obligation  (Verpflichtung) 

the  agreement  is  the  pre-existing  one  of  Doctrine 

cannot  be  put  together  by  Negotiation 

the  result  (not  the  cause)  of  the  substantial  Unities  in  Christ 

not  a  Platform;  nor  a  delineation  for  comparative  Distinction 

the  stress  of  Providence 

its  validity  is  that  of  Testimony 

evidence  of  the  Lutheran  Confession 

analysis  of  the  Legal  situation 

not  based  on  Social  Pact 

the  Binding  clauses  of  our  confessions 

Wemsdorf,   Dlssertat.   de  auctorit.    libror.    symbol.    (In   tractatit   de   Indlffer- 

entismo  rellglonum). Fritzsche,  t)ber.   d.   unverand.   Gelt,   der  Aug.   Confess. 

Leipz.    1830. Uiifling,   De   Symbolor.    natur.    necessit.    auctor.    atque  usu.   Erl. 

1835. Miiller,    Die   Symbolischen   Bucher,    1S48,    Hist.-theol.    Einl.    I. 

p.    54 

Chapter  VUI. 

DO  CONFESSIONS  BIND? 

galling  to  Those  who  are  Not  At  Home  in  them 

joy  and  freedom  to  Those  who  Confide  in  their  teaching 

the  Former  should  not  remain  in  them 

the  Latter  should  accustom  themselves  to  their  restrictions 


xliv  CONTENTS 

why  we  train  Posterity  in  them 

why  we  ask  loyalty  from  our  Teachers 

why  the  church  needs  a  settled  Faith  taught 

how  free  Investigation  is  to  be    reconciled    with    confessional 

principle  and  obligation;    Protestantism,    with   the   abiding 

communion  of  saints 
how  and  why  the  confessions  must  hold  us  Loyal 

Eberhard,    1st    die    Augsb.    Confess,    eine    Glaubensvorschr.,    etc.    1795-97. 

(Negative)  JohannNen,  Untersuch.  dei-  Rechtmas.sigk.  d.  Verpfl.  a  S.  B.  Al- 
cona.   1833. Sartorius,   Ueber    die    Nothwendigk.    u.    Verblndlichk.    d.    Kirch. 

Glaubens-bekenntn.   Stuttgart.   1S45. Miiller,  Die  Symbolischen  Bucher,   1848, 

Hist.-theol.    Einl.    I. Kietschel,    G.,    Luther    und    die    Ordination.    1883. 

Derselbe,    ThStKr.    1895.      Heft    I    "Luthers    Ordinationsformular   usw." For 

Luther  and  the   Condemnation  of   Heretics,   v. Kiihler,  W.,    Reformation   u. 

Ketzerprozess.  1901.  But  Koliler's  statement  on  p.  38  that  Luther  changed 
his  opinion  concerning  the  heretics  after  1528,  and  gave  his  consent  to  the 
"Opinion  of  the  Theologians  at  Wittenberg"  that  demanded  their  punish- 
ment, so  that  he  also,  if  he  had  lived  to  see  it,  would  have  justified  the 
execution  of  Servetus,  no  less  than  Melanchthon,  Is  combated  by  Tsehackert, 
Entstehung.  .Kirchenlehre,  p.  50.  He,  referring  to  the  said  opinion  (C.  R.  4, 
737ff. ),  shows  that  it  deals  with  Anabaptists  who  are  to  be  punished  as  revo- 
lutioners.  Melanchthon  wrote  the  opinion  and  Luther  placed  under  It  the 
following:  "Placet  mihi  Martino  Luthero.  Although  it  seems  to  be  cruel 
to  puni.-^h  some  with  a  sword,  it  is  still  more  cruel  that  they  condemn  the 
ministerium  veibi,  and  have  no  certain  teaching,  and  suppress  the  true 
doctrine,   and  in  addition  want  to  destroy  the  Regna  mundi."    (C.    R.    4,   740.) 

p.    78 

Chapter  IX. 
THE  RISE  OF  THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  IN  THE 
CHURCH. 

from  Faith  within  to  outer  Witness 

from  Testimony  to  Confession 

the  first  confessions  in  the  New  Testament 

the  Pentecostal  and  Baptismal  confessions 

the  Fixed  confessional  Forms  of  the  New  Testament 

the  confessions  of  the  Second  Century 

CaHpari,   fngedruckte,    Quellen    z.    Gesch.    d.    Taufsymbols,    Chrlstianla.    1868, 

1869,     1875.       Alte    u.     Neue    Quellen    z.     Ge.sch.     d.     Taufsymbols,    lb.     1879. 

Zezsehwitz,    v.,    Katechetik. Hahn,    Bibl.    der    Symbole    u.     Glaubensregeln, 

1877. Zahn,    Glaubensregel    u.    Taufbek.    in    d.    alt.    K.    in    Ztschr.    f.    k.    Wiss. 

1881,   p.   302ft. Zahn,  Das.    ap.    Symb.    1892. KattenbuNrh,   Das.   ap.    Symb. 

i.iiff.   1894. — — Swete,  the  Apostles'    Creed.   1894. Kunze,   Glaubensregel,   hell. 

Schrift   u.    Taufbekenntniss. Seeberg,   Der    Katechismus   der   Urchristenhelt. 

1903. Harnack,    History    of    Dogma    III.     209. Hort,    Dissertations    II. 

p.    93 

Chapter  X. 

THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE    CONFESSIONAL  PRIN- 
CIPLE IN  THE  CHURCH. 

the  Apostles'  Creed 
the  Nicene  Creed 


CONTENTS  xlv 

tlie  Athanasian  Creed 

the  Mediaeval  interval 

the  Ninety-Five  Theses 

the  Marburg  and  Schwabach  Articles 

the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  confessional  development 

the  confessional  Connection  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 

Athanasius,  de  decretis  syn.   Nic.   and  epistl.   ad  Afros. Hefele,   Concllien- 

gesch.    i.    ed.    2,    282ff. Braun,    de    synode    Nic.    (Klrchengeschlchtl.    Studien 

by    KropHer,    Iv.    3). Kollner,    Symbolik    i.     1837. Swainson,    The    Nicene 

and    Apostles'    Creeds,    etc.    1875. Onimanney,    The    Athan.    Creed.    1S75,    and 

Early  History  of  the  Athan.  Creed,  1S80. Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom. 

Kattenbuscb,    Luthers    Stellung    zu    den    okumenisclien    Symbolen.    Giessen, 

1883.  .........  p.    104 

Chapter  XI. 

THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  IN  THE  AUGSBURG 
CONFESSION. 

the  confessional  Authorship  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
the  confessional  Content  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
the  confessional  Progress  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
the  general  confessional  Characteristics  of  the  same 

the  principle  of  stable  Objectivity 

the  principle  of  catholic  Continuity 

the  principle  of  personal  salvation  b.y  personal  Faith 

the  principle  of  respectful  maintenance  of  Freedom 

the  principle  of  Simplicity 

the  principle  of  measured  Protest  against  previous  error 
the  Fate  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  Variata, 
its  Essence  as  Invariata 

the  v?ide  Difference  between  the  theology  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  pure  American  Protestantism 

Kollner,    Eduard.     Symbolik    der    lutherischen    Kirche.     Hamburg,     1837. 

Plitt,   G.,   Einleitung  in   die  Augustana,   Erlangen    1867:   Plitt,   G.,   Die   Apologle 

der   Augustana    geschichtllch    erklart.    Erl.    1873. Zockler,    die    augsb.    Kon- 

fession    als   symbol.    Lehrgrundlage    d.    deutschen    Reformationskirche.    Frankf. 

18  70. Vilmar,     die     augsb.     Konfession     erklart.     Gutersloh     1870. Gobel, 

Max.,  die  religiose  Eigenthiimlichkeit  der  luther,  und  reformirten  Kirche.  Bonn, 

1837. Hundesbagren,   C.   B.,   Die  Conflicte   des   Zwinglianismus,    Lutherthums, 

und   Calvinismus,   in  der  Bernischen   Landeskirche   von    1522-1558.   Berne,   1843. 

Schneckenburger,    M.,    Vergleichende    Darstellung    des    luther,    und    refcrm. 

Lehrbegrifts.     Stuttgart,    1855. Schaff,    Creeds   of   Christendom. Tscbaok- 

ert.    Die    Entstehung    der    lutherischen    und    der    reformierten    Kirchenlehre. 
Gottingen.    1910.        ........  p.    117 

Chapter  XII. 
THE    HISTORY    AND    TENDENCY    OF    THE    CONFES- 
SIONAL PRINCIPLE  IN  THE  CHURCH. 

confession  and  faith  Go  Together 

Faith  reaches  its  most  impressive  jwwer  in  Confession 


xlvi  CONTENTS 

Preaching  is  the  most  active  and  regular  form  of  confession 

the  church's  confessions  are  Dynamic,  and  the  term  'symbol' 
is  inadequate 

Christ  the  High  Priest  of  our  confession 

the  church  Developing  her  confession 

after  the  first  cooling  of  confessional  ardor  and  the  fresh  out- 
burst of  faith  in  the  Reformation,  the  church  rose  to  heroic 
and  complete  confession 

the  two  periods  of  the  Dying  Away  of  faith  in  the  church 

relaxing  of  confessional  ardor  led  to  the  science  of  Symbolics. 

Neander,  Geschichte  der  Pflanzung  und  Leitung  der  christlichen  Kirche 
durch  die  Apostel.  Hamburg,  1S32. I^ambert,  J.  C,  in  Hasting's  Dic- 
tionary   of    the    Bible. Heinrich,    Versuch    einer    Geschichte    der    verschied- 

enen  Lehrarten  der  christlichen  Glaubenswahrheiten  und  der  merkwiirdigsten 
Systeme  und  der  Compendien  derselben.  Lpz.  1790.— — Gasz,  Geschichte  der 
protestant.   Dogmatik  in  ihrem   Zusammenhange  mit  der  Theologie  iiberhaupt. 

Heppe,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protestantismus  im   16.  Jahrhundert.    (cp. 

the  sections:  Symbolik,   lolemik.) Tholuck,  der  Geist  der  lutherischen  The- 

ologen  Wittenbergs.   Hamburg,   1852. Cheninitii,   Examen   concilii  Tridentini. 

Fref.     1588. Kechtenbach,     encyclopaedia    symbolica,     vel     analysis    Confes- 

sionis    August.,    Art.    Smalc.    etc.    Lips.    1612. Carpzovii,    Isagoge    in    libros 

ecclesiarum    luth.    symbolicos.    Lips.    1665. v.    Sanden,    Theologia    symbolica 

lutherana,   etc.   Fref.   et   Lips.    1688. TValch,   Introductio   in  libros  eccl.    luth. 

symbol.  Jen.   1732. Baunigarten,  Eriauterungen  der  im  chr.   Concordienbuch 

enthaltenen  symb.  Schriften.  Halle,  1747. The  historico-theolog.  Intro- 
ductions     to      the      Concordienbuch      of      Pipping      (1703.      4.).      Pfaff      (1730), 

Hase,     Franke,     and     Miiller. Semler,     Apparat,     ad     Libros     Symb.     Eccles. 

Luth.      Halle.      1775. Planck,      Gesch.      der      Entstehung,      der      Verander- 

ungen,      und      der     Bildung      des      prot.      Lehrbegriffs.      Leips.      1781-1800. 

Planck,   Abriss   einer   historischen  und   vergleichenden   Darstellung   der  versch- 

iedenen    Dogmatischen    Systeme.     Gotting.     1796,     3     ed.,     1822. Marheineke, 

Christliche    Symbolik.    Heidelberg.    1S10-1S13. Marheineke,    Inst.    Symbolicae 

Doctrinarum.  Berlin,  1S12. Winer,  Comparative  Darstellung  des  Lehrbe- 
griffs der  verschiedenen  Christlichen   Kirchenparteien.   Leipsig,    1824.   Later  ed. 

1866.     Eng.     trans,     (not    in    full),     Clarke,     Edbg. Kollner,    Symbolik    aller 

Christlichen  Confessionen.  Hamburg,  1837.  1844,  2  vols.  (Completed  only  for 
the   Lutheran   and   the   Reformed   Churches.) 

Guericke,    allgem.    christl.    Symbolik,    eine    vergleichende    Darstellung.  .vom 

luther.-kirchl.     Standpunkte.      Leipz.      1839-46. Schenkel,     das     Wesen     des 

Protestantismus    aus    den    Quellen    des    Reformationszeitalters.    Schaffh.    1846. 

Moehler,  J.    A.,   Symbolik.    1832.    7   Ed.    1864.    Symbolism,    or   Exposition   of 

the    Doctrinal    Differences   between    Catholics    and    Protestants.    Lon.    1847. 

Baur,   der   Gegensatz   des   Katholicism.    und   Protestantismus.    1834. Nitzsch, 

protest.    Beantwortung    der    Symbolik    Mohler's.     Hamburg,     1835. Mattlies, 

Comparative  Symbolik,  1S54. Baier,  Symbolik,  1854. Hofniann,  Sym- 
bolik, 1857. riitt,  Grundrisz  der  Symbolik,  1875. Reiff,  Glaube  der  Kirch- 
en    und    Kirchenparteien,    1875. Oeliler,    Lehrbuch    der    Symbolik,     1876. 

Scheele  v.,    Teologisk   Symbolik,   1877 — translated   into   German,    1881.      Also   in 

Zocklers     Handbuch     der     theologischen     W^issensch.,     1883. Philippl,     Vor- 

lesung,  1883. Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom.  1884.  3  vols. Nosgen,  Sym- 
bolik.  Kattenbuseli,   (Ritschlian,)   Lehrbuch  der  vergleichenden  Confessions- 

kunde,    i.    Freiburg,    1S92. Walther,   W.    Luthers   Glaubensgewissheit.    Halle, 

1892. Waltlier,   W.,    Das    Erbe    der    Reformation.    Leipzig,    1893    u.    1894. • 

Miiller,    Karl.    Symbolik,    1896.    (Reformed.) Orr,   Progress   of   Dogma.    Lon- 


CONTENTS  xlvii 

don.   1901.   IX.    Post-Reformation  Theology. Miiller,   Die  Bekenntnis.^jchrii'ten 

der  Reformierten  Kirche,  1903. Fischer,  E.,  Fr.  Autoritat  und  Erfahrung  In 

der    Begriindung    der    Heilsgewissheit    nach    den    Bekenntnisschriften    der    ev.- 
luth.   Kirche.    Leipzig,    1907.  ••-...  p.    144 

Chapter  XIII. 
THE  CONFESSIONAL  USE  OF  THE  WORD  'SYMBOL.' 

the  meaning  of  the  Term 

its  use  by  the  Church  Fathers 

its  use  in  the  Eeformation  and  in  the  Book  of  Concord 

Miiller,    K.,    Die    Symbole    de.s    Luthertums,    Pr.    Jahrb.    Bd.    63,    S.    121ff. 

Miiller,    Die    Syinbolischen    BUcher.    Hist.-theol.    Einleitung.    I.    Von    Symbolen 

und    symbolischen    Schriften    iiberhaupt. Jacobs,    Book    of    Concord.     Hist. 

Int.    Symbols,    Symbolical    Books.  .....  p.    156 

Chapter  XIV. 
THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION, 
was  it  born  at  Augsburg 

the  great  Living  confession  of  the  church  was  Luther 
the  Reasons  why  he  was  the  church's  living  confession 
his  relation  to  External  confessional  statements 
the  Weakness  of  a  living  witness 

Kolde,     Luthers     Stellung     zu     Concil.     und     Kirche,     1876. Kattenbusch, 

Luthers    Stellung    zu    den    okumen.     Symbolen,     Glessen,     18S3. — ■ — Preuss,    Die 
Entwicklung    des    Schriftprincips    bei    Luther    bis    zur    leipziger    Disput.,    1901. 

. Scheel,    Luthers    Stellung    zur    heilige    Schrift,     1902.-— — Tbomasius,    Dog- 

mengesch.    ii.,    2d    ed. Loofs,    Dogmengesch.,    3d    ed. Krauth,    The    Con- 
servative  Reformation.        .......  p.    163 

Chapter  XV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE      ORIGIN     OF     THE     AUGSBURG     CONFESSION. 
KOLDE'S  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Emperor 

the  Torgau  Articles 

the  Elector  at  Coburg 

the  Beginning  of  the  confession 

what  Luther  saw  on  May  11th 

the  Saxon  Draft 

the  Other  Estates  admitted 

the  negotiations  of  Melanchthon 

the  Delivery  of  the  confession 

the  confession  and  Luther 

De    Wcttc,    M.    Luthers    Brlefe    etc.    Berlin    1825-26. Enders,    E.    L.,    M. 

Luthers    Briefwechsel.      Frankfurt    a.    M.    1884fC. Kolde,    Th.,    Analecta   Lu- 

therana,    Briefe    und    Aktenstuecke    zur    Geschichte    Luthers.    Gotha,    1883. 

Corpus   Reformatorum    (C.   R.)    ed.   Bretschnelder.     Halls   Saxonum.    1839ff. 

Seckendorf,   V.    L.   v.,    Commentarius   hlstoHcus   et   apologeticus   de   Lutheran- 
lemo.   etc.   Francofurtl  et  Lipslae,   1692, Brueck,  Geschtcbte  der  Rellgrlona- 


xlviii  CONTENTS 

verhandlungen    auf    dem    Reichstage    zu    Augsburg    im    Jahre    1530    In    K.    B. 
Foerstemanns   Archlv    fuer    die    Geschichte    der   klrchl.    Reformation.    1.    Bd.    1 

Heft.  Halle,  1831. Foerstemann,  K.  E.,  Urkundenbucli  zu  der  Gesciiichte  des 

Reichstags    zu    Augsburg    Im    Jahre    1830.    Halle,    1833-35. Schirrniacher,    F. 

W.,    Briefe   und    Akten    zu    der    Geschichte    des    Religionsgespraeches    zu    Mar- 
burg  und   des    Reichstages   zu   Augsburg    1530.      Gotha,    1876. 

Dav.   Chytraeus,   Hist.    d.    Augsb.    Konfession.    Rostock,    1576,    and    later. 

Coclestlni,  G.,    Historia  Comitiorum  A.   M.   D.   XXX.   Augustae  celebr.   Francof. 

ad.     V.     159  7. Mueller,     J.     J.,     Historie     von     der     Evangelischen     Staende 

Protestation — and    also:    Dem    zu    Augsburg    auf    dem    Reichstage    1530    ueber- 

gebenen    Glaubensbekenntnis,    etc.    Jena,    1705. Cyprian,    E.    S.,    Historie    d. 

A.   C.   etc.   Halle   (1730)    1731. Salig,   Ch.   A..   Vollstaendige   Historie  d.   A.   C. 

etc.     Halle,    1730. Weber,    G.    G..    Kritische    Geschichte    d.    A.    C.    Frankfurt 

1782. KoUner,   Ed.,    Symbolik   der   lutherischen   Kirche.    Hamburg,    1873. 

Calinifh,    R.,    Luther    und    die    Augsburgische    Konfession.     Leipzig,     1861. 

Koaake,    J.    K.    F.,    Luthers   Anteil    an    d.    A.    C.    Berlin,    1S63. Plitt,    G.    L.. 

Einleitung   in    die   Augustana.    Erlangen    1867f. Zoeokler,    O.,    Die   A.    K.    als 

Lehrgrundlage    der    deutschen    Reformationskirche,    etc.    Frankfurt,    1870. 

Kolde,     Th.,     Die     Augsburgische     Konfession     lateinisch     und     deutsch     kurz 

erlaeutert.      Gotha,    1896. Tschackert,    P.,    Die   unveraenderte   Augsburgische 

Konfession    deutsch    und    lateinisch    nach    den    besten    Handschriften    aus   dem 

Besitze    der    Unterzeichner.      Leipzig,    1901. Kolde,    Th.,    Die    aelteste    Red- 

aktion   der   Augsburger   Konfession    mit    Melanchthons   Einleitung    zum   ersten- 

mal    herausgegeben    und    geschichtlich    gewuerdigt.      Guetersloh,    1906.^ The 

same:    Neue    Augustanastudien.     Neue    Kirchl.    Zeitschr.    XVII.    (1906),    S.    729 
seqq.  .........  p.    168 

Chapter  XVI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

MELANCHTHON'S    UNSUCCESSFUL    ATTEMPTS    AS    A 
DIPLOMATIST.    KOLDE'S  ESSAY. 

the  activity  of  Melanchthon  at  Augsburg 

characterized  by  Kolde 

the  Defense  of  Melanchthon  by  Brieger 

why  Brieger  is  Wrong 

the  Documentary  evidence 

the  lack  of  sympathy  in  Melanchthon  with  Zwinglians 

was  the  Final  Work  on  confession  begun  before  June  21st 

the  affirmative  of  Brieger 

the  reply  of  Kolde 

the  negotiations  by  IMelanchthon  with  Rome  rejected 

the  Consequences  of  their  rejection 

the  Four  Points  of  Melanchthon  as  formulated  by  Valdes. 

Kolde,    M.    Luther    IT.    1SS4. Kolde,    Die    Augsburgische    Konfession, 

Maurenbrecher,  Geschichte  der  katholischen  Reformation  Nordlingen.   1S80. • 

Virck,    Melanchthons    politische    Stellung    auf    dem    Reichstage    zu    Augsburg. 

888. Bezold,  Fr.  v.,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Reformation.  Berlin.  1S90. 

Kawerau,     Lehrbuch    der    Kirchengeschichte    III.     (Reformation    und     Oegen- 

reformation).   1899. Miiller,  Karl.  Kirchengeschichte.  Freiburg.  1902. E11- 

inger,    Georg,    Philipp    Melanchthon.    Berlin,    1902. Brieger,    Zur    Geschichte 

des  Augsburger  Reichstages  von   1530.    Leipzig,    1903.  .  .  p.   192 


CONTENTS  xlix 

Chapter  XVII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

KOLDE  ON  THE  FIRST  KNOWN  DRAFT,  OR  OLDEST 
REDACTION  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION, 
AND  ITS  DISCOVERY. 

the  Discovery  of  the  document 

its  Significance 

a  brief  Analysis  of  its  contents,  including  the  introduction 

the  Fate  of  this  first  redaction 

Original   in   Nurnberg   Kreisarclilv.        .....  p.    221 

Chapter  XVIII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  OLDEST  KNOWN  FORM  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CON- 
FESSION TRANSLATED  INTO  ENGLISH. 

the  Preface  or  introduction  of  Melanchthon 
the  Eighteen  Articles  of  Faith 
the  Articles  in  Disptue 

Original   in   Nurnberg   Kreisarchlv.        .  «...  p.    251 

Chapter  XIX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  HAND  OF  GOD  IN  THE  FORMATION  OF  THE  AUGS- 
BURG CONFESSION,  AS  SHOWN  BY  THE  COURSE 
OF  EVENTS  IN  1529  AND  1.530.  AND  IN  THE  LET- 
TERS OF  LUTHER,  AND  OF  MELANCHTHON. 

the  Real  question  as  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
the  History  of  the  Reformation  up  to  Augsburg 
the  Elector  takes  the  beginnings  of  his  Apology  to  Augsburg 
the  Emperor  delays  and  the  Elector  awaits  his  coming 
the  Saxon  Apology  becomes  a  confession 
the  question  of  Preaching  a  test 
the  submission  of  the  confession  to  Luther 
the  Emperor's  entry  into  Augsburg 
the  Opening  of  the  diet 
the  first  ten  days  of  Suspense 
the  confession  Completed  and  Delivered 
the  attitude  of  Melanchthon 

confessional  history  Subsequent  to  delivery  of  Confession 
the  Hand  of  Providence 
D 


1  CONTENTS 

FOR  LUTHER  AT   THE   DIET  OF  WORMS,   etc. 

"Acta  T>.  Martini  Luther!  in  Comitiis  Principum  Wormatlae"  (1521),  B.  A. 
V.    a.    6,    13   f. 

Kostlln,  Luthers  Rede  in  Worms.      Halle,   1S74. 

Kolde,  Luthers   Stellung,   u.   s.   w.    (1876). 

K*ld«,   Luther  auf  dem   Reichstag  zu  Worms.      Halle,    1883. 

Kostlln,  Martin  Luther  I.   Elberfeld,   1883. 

Lammer,  Hugo,  Die  vortridentinisch-katholische  Theologie  des  Reforma- 
tionszeltalters.     Berlin,    1858. 

Dieclthoflr,   Luthers   Lehre   in    ihrer   ersten    Gestalt.      Rostock,    1887. 

Tschackert,  Die  Entstehung  der  lutherischen  und  der  reformierten  Klrchen- 
lehre   (The  Theological  Beginnings  o£  Luther,   34)   passim.  1910. 

FOR  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  TO  THE  STATE  AND  TO 

THE  PAPACY. 

Brieger,  Th.,  Die  kirchl.  Gewalt  der  Obrigkeit  nach  den  Anschauungen 
Luthers.      ZThK.    II,    513ff. 

Jager,  G.,  Die  politischen  Ideen  Luthers  und  ihr  Einfluss  auf  die  innere 
Kntwicklung   Deutschlands.    Pr.    Jahrb,    1903.      Aug.-Heft,    210fC. 

Scliornbaum,  K.,  Zur  Politik  des  Markgrafen  Georg  von  Brandenburg. 
Mtinchen,   1906. 

Kolde,   A.      "Philipp   der   Grossmutige"    RE.    15,    296ff. 

Stahelin,  R.,  Huldreich  Zwingli,  sein  Leben  u.  Wirken.  2  Bde.  Basel,  1895 
u     1897. 

Sleidanus,  De  Statu  Religionis  et  Reipubllcae  Carole  V.  Caesare,  1555. 
Francfort,    1785. 

Sepulveda,   Historia  Carol!   V.    Leipzig,    1841-46. 

ArniHtrong,   The   Emp.    Charles   V.      Lon.,    1902. 

For   Crowning   of   Charles  V.,   v.    Baumgarten,   Gesch.    Karls  V.   II   704. 

Garhard,  Correspondence  de  Ch.  V.  et  d'Adrien  vi.,  Brussels,  1862  (Eng. 
trans.,    London,    1862). 

Lammer,   Analecta  Vaticana,    1521-46.      Freiburg,    1863.    (The   Elector  John.) 

Ranke,  Deut-sche  Geschichte,  Book  5,  Chap.  9  (Vol.  HI.  211  sqq.).  (The 
Elector  John.) 

Anton,  Apologia  Mspta.,  fol.  62b.  (The  Elector's  Appeal  for  the  Public 
Reading  of  the  Confession.) 

FOR   THE   PROTEST  AT   THE  DIET   OF  SPIRES,   etc. 

For  Protestation,   v.  Hauser,   Die   Protestation  von   Speler,    1904. 

For  the  Protest,  v.  SleidanuM,  De  Statu  Religionis,  1557,  98  sq.  (a  con- 
densation). 

For  the  Decree  and  the  Protest,  v.  Colestin,  Hist.  II.  192  sqq. 

For  the  Appeilation,  v.  J.  J.  Miiiler,  Historie  von  der  Evangelischen  Stand* 
Protestation,   etc.    51    sqq. 

For  the  Federation,  v.  Kolde,  Beitrage  zur  Reformationsgeschlchte  (1896), 
96. 

For  Confederations-Notel,   v.  J.   J.    Miiiler,   Historie,    236   sqq. 

For   Rotach   Conference,   v.    Strassburg    Politische   Correspondenz,    269    eqq. 

For  the  History  of  Fmbassy  from  Diet  of  Spires  to  the  £inperor,  v.  SaUtr> 
Hist.    d.    Augsp.    Con.   II.    136-138. 

Dolzig's   Report   in   Forstemann's   Urkundenbuch.    I.    127   et   seqq. 

The  Diet  at  Augsburg. 

documentary. 

Forstemann,  K.  E.,  Urkundenbuch  zu  der  Geschichte  des  Reichstags  za 
Augsburg    im    Jahre,    1830.      Halle,    1833-35. 

Schirrmacher,  F.  W.,  Brief e  und  Akten  zu  der  Geschichte  des  Rellglons- 
gespraches  zu   Marburg  und  des  Reichstages   zu   Augsburg.    1530.   Gotha,   1876. 


CONTENTS  li 

Aln  kurtze  Anzaygung.  Cyprian,  Beilagen.  1530.   SO. 

Pro  Rellgione  Christiana  res  gestae.   Cyprian,   Beilagen.    1530.    85. 

Volgea  verzeichent  alle  Stiick  so  im  Druck  dem  Handel  miissen  Inferlrt  und 
elngeleibt  werden.      1530. 

Briick,  Geschichte  der  Rellgionsverhandlungen  auf  dem  Reichstag  zu  Augs- 
burg  im   J.     1530. 

(Nuremberg  Delegates)  Briefe:  Strobels  Mlscellan.  lit.  inhalt.  II.  3-48;  HI. 
193-220. 

Osiandri,  Philippl  Hassiae,  Senat.  Nuremberg.  Literae  in  Camerarll  Vlt. 
Melanchthonls,   ed.    Strobel.    407-414. 

Spalatin,  Berichte,    in   Luthers   Werke.    Leipz.    XX.    202-212. 

Spalatin,  Annales  Reformationis,  published  by  Cyprian.  Leipz.,  1718.  131- 
289. 

C.   R.   AND  WRITINGS  OF  LUTHER  AND  MELANCHTHON. 

Corpus   Reformatorum    (C.    R.)    ed   Bret.schneider.    Halis   Saxonum,    lS39ff. 

Bindseil,   H.   E.,   Corpus  Reformatorum.   XXVI.   Pars.   Prior. 

Melanebthon,  Opera  quae  supersunt  omnia.  (Bretschneider).  Halle,  1834- 
1856.   28   vols. 

Melanebthon,   Eplstolae.   C.   R.,   II. 

Melanebthon,  (His  Own  Account  of  the  History  of  the  Composition  of  the 
Augsb.  Conf. ),  C.  R.  9.  Trans.  Krauth  Chronicle  55.  Jacob's  Book  of  Con- 
cord.    II.   30. 

C'amerarius,  Vita  Melanchthonls  (1566)  Strobel.  Noesselt,  Halae,  1777. 
119,    134. 

Luther,  AVerke   (Walch.)    Loipz.   XVI.    734-2145.   XX.   1-293. 

Luther,  Siimmtllche  Werke.  Erlangen,  1826-1857.  65  vols,  and  2  vols. 
Register. 

Luther,  Siimmtliche  Schriften  (Hoppe).  St.  Louis.  Reformations-Schrlften 
beginning  with   XV.    1899;   XVI.   1900;   XVII.    1901. 

lb.  Dr.  Luther's  Briefe,  Erste  Abtheilung.  XXI.  a.  1903.  Zwelte  Abthellung. 
XXI.   b.   1904. 

De  Wette,  M.  Luther's  Briefe.  Berlin.  1825-8.  (With  a  supplementary 
volume   by    Seidemann,    1856.) 

Anders,    E.    L.,    M.    Luther's   Briefwechsel.      Frankfurt   a.    M.    1884ff. 

Carrie,  Margaret  A.,  The  Letters  of  Martin  Luther.  Selected  and  Trans- 
lated.     Macmillan.      London,    1908. 

HISTORIES. 

Chyiraeus,  Hist.  d.  Augsb.  Konfession.  Rostock,  1576,  and  later.  Latin. 
Frcf.   ad  Moen.,   1582. 

Leodius,  Andreas  Fabricius,  Harmonia  Confessionls  Augustanae.  Colonae, 
1573. 

Coelestini,  Historia  Comitiorum  A.  M.  D.  XXX.  Augustae  celebr.  Francof. 
ad.    V.    1597. 

Seckendorf,  V.  L.  v.,  Commentarius  historicus  et  apologetlcus  de  Lutheran- 
ismo,    etc.      Francofurti    et   Lipsiae,    1692. 

Carpzov,   Isagoge.    2d    ed.    1675.    90-107. 

3Iueller,  Historie  von  der  Evangelischen  Staende  I-\  otestatlon — and  also 
Dem  zu  Augsburg  auf  dem  Reichstage,  1530,  ueberg  otnen  Glaubensbekennt- 
nis,    etc.      Jena.,    1705. 

Cyprian,  Historia  der  Augsb.  Conf.  aus  den  Origlnal-Acten — mlt  Beylagen. 
Gotha,    1730,    4to. 

Salig,   Vollstaendlge    Historie   d.    A.    C,    etc.      Halle,    1730. 

Walch,  J.    G.,   Introd.    in   L.    S.   Jena.,   1732.    157-482 

MODERN    INVESTIGATION. 
Rudelbaeh,    Histor.    kritisch.    Einleitung    in    die   Augsb.    Conf.    Dresden,    1841. 
Callnieh,   Luther  und   die  Augsburgische   Confession.    1861. 


Hi  CONTENTS 

Knaake,  Luther's  Anteil  an  d.   A.  C.  Berlin,   1S63. 

Engelhardt   In   Niedner's   Zeitschrlft.    1865.    515-629. 

putt,   Einleitung  in  die  Augustana.    1867-68. 

Krauth,   The   Conservative   Reformation.    1871. 

Kolde,  Der  Kanzler  Briick  u.  seine  Bedeutung  fur  die  Entwlcklung  der 
Keformation.      Halle,    1S74. 

Kolde,    Analecta   Lutherana,    Briefe    und    Actenstiicke.    Gotlia,    1883. 

Brieger  in   Kirchengeschichtliche   Studien.    1888.    268-320. 

Brieger,  Die  Torgauer  Artikel,  in  Kirchengeschiciitliclie  Studien.  Leipzig, 
1888. 

(For  an  English  Translation  of  the  So-called  Torgau  Articles  in  Forste- 
mann,  Urkundenbuch.  I.  68  sqq.  v.  Jacobs,  Book  of  Concord.  II.  75-103.) 

Kolde,    Beitrage    zur    Reformationsgeschichte.    94    et    seqq. 

Kolde,  Die  Augsburgische  Konfession  lateinisch  und  deutsch  kurz  erlautert. 
Gotha,   1S96. 

Tschackert,   Die   unveranderte   Augsb.    Konf.    Leipzig,    1901. 

Brieger,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Augsburger  Reichstages  von  1530.   Leipzig,   1903. 

Kolde,   Die  aelteste  Redaktion   der  Augsburger  Konfession.   Guetersloh,    1906. 

Kolde,   Neue  Augustanastudien.    Neue  kirchl.   Zeitschr.   XVII.    1906.    729   seqq. 

Hoennicke,  Melanchthon's  Stellung  auf  dem  Reichstage  zu  Augsburg.  1530. 
Deutsch   Ev.    Blatter,    Nov.    1908. 

For  the  Literature  of  the  more  recent  discussions  and  discoveries,  see 
Literature  to  chapters  XV,  XVL  XVII,  XVIII.  ...  p.   283 

Chapter  XX. 
THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE     AUGSBURG     CONFESSION     REMAINED     UNAL- 
TERED. 

the  tears  of  Melanchthon  :  their  cause 
the  peace  of  Luther:  its  cause 

ready  to  stand  by  the  confession  even  to  Martyrdom 
was  Melanchthon  open-hearted  to  Luther 
the  correspondence  from  June  25th  to  July  1st 
Luther's  attempt  to  counteract  Melanchthon's  lack  of  faith 
the  course  of  Events  from  the  diet  to  the  confutation 
the  attempts  at  Compromise  imder  Melanchthon 
their  Failure  and  the  departure  of  the  Elector 

Corpus    Reformatorum    ed.    Bretschn eider.      Halis    Saxonum.    1839ff.    II.    2. 

372    sq. Serkendorf,    V.    L.    v.,    Commentarius    historicus    et    apologeticus   de 

Lutheranismo,   etc.      Francofurti    et   Lipsiae,    1692. Salig,   Vollstaendige   Hls- 

torie    d.    A.    C,    etc.    Halle,    1730.    II.     334    sq. Camerarius,    Vita    Melanch- 

thonis    (1566)    Stroebel.      Noesselt,    Halae,    1777. Meyers,    J.    F.,    Dissert,    de 

Lenitate    Phil.    Melanchthonis. Kcillner,    Symbolik    der    Luth.    Kirche.    Ham- 
burg,   1837. Plitt,   Die.    Apol.    d.    August,    1873. Calinlcb,    Zeitschrlft    fUr 

wissenschaftliche   Theologie.    1S73.      541    et   seqq. Jaeobs,   Book   of   Concord, 

II.    Philadelphia,    1883. Ficker,   Die   Confut.    d.    Augsb.    Bek.    In   Ihrer   ersten 

Gestalt.    1891. Kolde,    Die   Augsb.    Conf.    1896    (together   with    the   Marburg, 

Schwabach,    and    Torgau    Articles,    the   Confutation,    and    the    Augustana   varl- 

ata). Sell,   K.,   Melanchthon  und  die   deutsche   Reformation   bis  1531.    Halle, 

l.sn?. Kaweraii,    G.,    Die    Versuche    Melanchthon    zur    kathoMschen     Kirche 

zuruckzuftihren.   1902. v.  also  Literature  of  Chap.   XIX  and  XXIV. 

p.   436 


CONTENTS  liii 

Chapter  XXI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION:    THE    FURTHER   HIS- 
TORY OF  ITS  EDITIONS  AND  MANUSCRIPTS. 

KOLDE'S  ESSAY,  WITH  A  SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 
AS  IT  BEARS  ON  THE  CONFESSIONAL  QUESTION, 
BY  T.  E.  8. 

the  first  Prints  of  tlie  Coiifession 

the  Editio  Princeps 

the  Variata  of  1540  and  its  influence 

the  Corpora  doctrinae 

the  original  Manuscripts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 

the  lack  of  a  perfect  Copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 

its  Text  in  the  situation  of  many  historical  documents 

and  of  the  Scriptures 
the  difference  between  a  Variant  and  a  Variata  edition 
the  attitude  of  Luther  and  of  the  Elector  toward  the  Variata 
the  attitude  of  Eck  and  of  Rome 

the  difficulties  of  Colloquy  of  Worms  and  of  Frankfurt  Recess 
the  significance  of  the  Convention  at  Naumburg 
the  texts  of  the  Augustana  as  related  to  the  Book  of  Concord 
the  relation  of  the  manuscripts  and  prints  to  the  Augustana  as 

a  Confessional  standard 

For  Information  on  the  First  Prints,  v.  C.  R.  XXVI,  477,  sq.  Weber,  I, 
394,    sqq.,    Zockler,    Die   Augsburglsche   Konfession,    31. 

For  a  clear  summary  as  to  whether  the  Editio  Princeps  may  be  termed 
the  Invarlata,  v.  Neve,  in  Luth.  Ch.  Rev.  XXX,  "Are  we  Justified  in  Dis- 
tinguishing  Between   an    Altered   and   an   Unaltered   Augustana?" 

For  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  Original  Text,  from  the  39  copies  of  It 
taken  especially  before  Its  delivery,  v.  Tschacliert,  Die  unverandert  Augsburg- 
Ische  Konfession,  deutsch  und  lateinisch,  nach  den  besten  Handschriften  aus 
dem   Besitze   der   Unterzeichner.      Leipzig,    1901. 

For  a  Bibliography  of  the  Latin  and  German  Mannscripts  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  In  the  Archives  v.  Krauth,  The  Conservative  Reformation,  1871, 
footnote   on   pp.    242,    243. 

For  the  Variata  of  1540  and  154  2,  v.  translation  In  full  In  Jacobs'  Book 
of  Concord,   II.   103-158. 

For  the  Texts  and  the  Texts  of  the  Variata  of  1540  and  1542  v.  Bindseil, 
C.  R.,  XXVI.  34  3;  Weber,  Krltische  Geschichte  d.  A.  C,  1782;  Eolde,  Die 
Augsburg   Konfession;    in    English,   Jacobs,   Book   of   Concord,    II.    103   sq. 


liv  CONTENTS 

Zockler,  Die  Augsburglsche  Konfesslon;  Tscbackert,  Die  Entstehung  der 
luth.   und   der   ref.    Kirchenlehre.    Gott.,    1910. 

Schmacker,  B.  M.,  English  Translations  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Luth. 
Ch.    Rev.    VI.    5.      .  .  .  .  .  .  p.    522 

Chapter  XXII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

PKOTESTANTISM    UNDEE    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFES- 
SION TO  THE  DEATH  OF  LUTHER. 

the  Apology  and  its  confessional  import 

the  Schmalkald  League 

the  Princes  and  Estates 

the  faith  taught  in  the  Loci 

the  olive  branch  waved  by  Melanchthon  to  Bucer 

tlie  Wittenberg  Concord 

the  Schmalkald  Articles 

the  marriage  of  Philip  of  Hesse 

the  Variata 

the  Regensburg  Interim 

the  Reformation  of  Cologne 

the  Death  of  Luther 

Schmalkald  T..eague:   Hortleder,   Kaiser  Karl  V.   wider  die   Schmal.   Bundes- 

verwandten.    Francfort,     1617. Bertram,    Ge.schichte    des    symbollschen    An- 

hangs   der   schmalkaldisehen   Artikel,    herau.sgegelien   von   J.    B.    Riederer,    Alt- 

dorf,    1770. Menrer,    Der    Tag    zu    Schmalkalden    und    die    schmalkaldi.schen 

Artikel,  Leipzig,   1837. Hefele,  Concilien.<!ge.schichte,   1S55,  edited  by   Hergen- 

rother,     1891;     trans.     Edinburgh,     1890.— — Plitt,     De    auctorltate    articulorum 

Smalcaldlcorum    symbolica,    1862. Kostlin,    Martin    Luther,    2.    Aufl.,    Elber- 

feld,   1883. Wlnokelniann,   Der  Schmalkaldi.sche  Bund,    Strassburg,    1892. 

The  Wittenberg  Concord,  with  Bucer's  Exhortation  and  Explanation.  1536. 
Jacobs,  Book  of  Concord,   II.   253-260. 

The  Variata  of  1540.    Tr.   In  Jacobs,   Book   of   Concord.    II.    103-147. The 

Variata  of  1542.  Chief  divergencies  from  that  of  1540  given.  Book  of  Con- 
cord.  II.   147-158. Corpus  Reformatorum  ed.   Bretschnelder.   Halls  Saxonum, 

1839ff. Camerariu8,    Vita    Melanchthonis    (1566)    Stroebel.    Noesselt,    Halae, 

1777. Chj-traeus,   Hist.    d.    Augsb.    Konfession.    Rostock,    1576,    and   later. 

Serkendorf,  V.  L.  v.  Commentarius  historicus  et  apologeticus  de  Lutheranismo, 

etc.    Francofurti    et    Lipsiae,    1692. (Kirrhner,    Selneoker,    Chemnitz),    Solida 

ac    vera    Confess.    August.    Historia,    Lipsiae,     16S5. Weber,    Kritische    Ges- 

chlchte    d.    A.    C.    Frankfurt,     1782. Kollner,    Symbolik    der    Luth.    Kirche. 

Hamburg,     1837. Krauth,     The     Conservative     Reformation.     1871. Plitt. 

Die.    Apol.    d.    August.,    1873. Fieker,    Die    Confut.    d.    Augsb.    Bek.    in    ihrer 

ersten    Ge.stalt.     1891. Kolde,    Die    Augsb.     Conf.     1896     (together    with    the 

Marburg,    Schwabach,    and   Torgau   Articles,    the    Confutation,    and   the   Augus- 

tana  variata). Book  of  Concord,   II,   Jacobs,   Philadelphia,    1883. Flotow, 

De  synerglsmo   Melanchthonis.     Vratisl.    1867. Fischer,   E.   F.,    Melanchthons 

Lehre    von    der    Bekehrung.      Tiiblngen,    1905. Tscbackert,    Die    Entstehung 

der   luth.    und   der   ref.    Kirchenlehre.    Gott,    1910.  .  .  .  p.    570 


CONTENTS  Iv 

Chapter  XXTTT. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

PEOTESTANTISM  FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  LIJTHER  TO 
THE  DEATH  OF  MELANCHTHON  AND  TO  THE 
DISINTEGRATION  OF  LUTHERANISM. 

years  of  Reaction 

the  leadership  of  Melanchthon 

political  Events  1546-1555 

the  Augsburg  and  Leipzig  Interims,  Maurice 

the  Papacy  and  the  Empire  in  these  events 

the  Controversies  following  Luther's  death 

Adiaphoristic 

Osiandrian 

the  Two  great  Parties 

Majoristic 

Antinomistic 

Crypto-Calvinism 

Eucharistic 

Synergistic 
the  synergism  of  Melanchthon 
the  Corpus  Philippicum 
partisan  Warfare 
dire  Results 

The  Leipzig  Interim.  Jacobs,  Book  of  Concord,  II.   260-272. 

Walcb,  Einleitung  in  d.  Rels.  Streitigktn.  Innerh.  u.  ausserh.  der  Luth. 
Kliche.    1730   ft. 

Planck,  Gesch.    des  prot.   Lehrbcgiiffes.    1781   ff. 

Wolf,  Gesch.   des   deutsch.    Protestanten.    1555-58,    1588. 

Wolf,   Ambrose,    Historia  von   der   Augsburgischen   Confession. 

Heppe,   Gesch.    des   deutsch.    Protestantism.    1555-81.    4   vols.    1852   fT. 

Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte  III,  2  1853.  S.  115-351  mil  sorgsam  ausgewftbl- 
ten  Excerpten   aus   Quellenschriften. 

Frank,  Theol.  der  Con.  Form.  4  vols.  1S58  ff. 

Preger,  W.,   Mathias  Flacius  Illyricus  und   seine   Zelt.    2   vols.    1861. 

Frank,   G.,   Gesch.   d.   prot.   Theologie   I.   1862. 

MoUer,   Andreas   Osiander.      Leben   und   Ausgewahlte    Schrlften. 

Hergang,  K.   Th.,  Das  Augsburger  Interim. 

Schmid,  H.,  Der  Kampf  der  luth.  Kirche  um  Luthers  Lehre  vom  Abend- 
mahl    im    Reformationszeitalter.      Leipzig,    1868. 

Krauth,    The    Conservative    Reformation.    1871. 

Walther,  Der  Concordienformel  Kern  und  Stern.   1877. 

Vogt,  O.,  Melanchthons  u.  Bugenhagens  Stellung  zum  Interim.  Jahrb.  f. 
prot.    Th.   1887.   1    ff. 

Thomasius-Seeberg,  Dogmengeschlchte  II.   1889. 

Hanssleiter,  Joh.,  Aus  der  Schule  Melanchthons.  Theologlsche  Dlsputatlonen 
und    Prnmotionen    zu   Wittenberg   in    den    Jahren.    1546-1560.      Gretfswald.    I^"*' 

Seeberg.    R.,   Lehrbuch   der  Dogmengeschlchte.   II.   1898.     .  .  p.    587 


Ivi  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XXIV 
THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

MELANCHTHON  AND  THE  MELANGHTHONIAN  PEIN- 
CIPLE. 

Luther  the  Confessor,  not  the  hero 

Melanchthon's  Gifts  and  gracious  Nature 

Luther's  loyalty  to  Melanchthon 

Melanehthon  as  a  Teacher  and  Writer 

his  Philosophy  and  Theology 

his  Practical  tendency 

the  'Lumen  Naturale' 

the  two  Contradictory  principles 

the  'Loci  Communes' 

its  Effect  on  Lutheran  Seventeenth-Century  theology 
his  clear  Understanding  of  the  principles  of  the  reformation 
his  Lack  of  faith  in  crisis 
his  mild  Rationalism 

miakes  confession  a  problem  of  Adjustment 
his  willingness  to  enter  Compromise 
his  Timidity 
his  desire  for  Union 
his  Diplomacy 
his  Anxiety 

The  Writings  of  Melanehthon:  Corpus  Doctrlnae  Christiana  e, 
das  1st,   Gantze  Summa  der  rechten   Christlichen  Lehre,   etc.   Leipzig,   1560  fol. 

Opera  Omnia,  Pence  r,  Wittenb.,  1562-64.  4  vols.  fol.  (Preceded  by 
the  Basle  edition  of  1541.) 

Opera  quae  super  sunt  omnia.  Bretschneider  and  Bindsell.  Halle, 
1834-1860.  28  vols.  4to.  In  Corpus  Reform  atorum  I-XXIV.  (The 
Letters  of  M.  are  found  in  I-IX,  with  a  subsequent  Vol.  added  1879  by 
Bindsell.)    (The  Classic  edition.) 

Bibllotheca  Melancthoniana.  Bindsell.  Halle,  1868.  (A  28-pago 
catalogue   of   the   editions   of   Melanchthon's   writings.) 

Loci.  The  Corpus  Reformatorum,  XXI.  Contains  three  main 
editions   Latin    and    German,    with    introductions,    Bretschneider   and    Bindsell. 

Loci.    Plitt-Kolde,    1890. Loci...  in    ihrer    Urgestalt — herausgegeb.    und 

erlautert.    Kolde,    1900. 

Annates  Vitae.   XXVIII.   In   C.   R. 

Camerarius,  1566;  Strobel,  1777;  Schmidt,  1861.    (v.  infra.) 

Galle,  Fr.,  Versuch  einer  Charakteristik  Melanchthons  ala  Theologen. 
Halle,    1840. 

Henl^e,  Das  Verhaltnlss  Luthers  und  Melanchthons  zu  eincnder.  Marburg, 
1860. 

Schmidt,  K.,  Ph.  Melanchthon,  Leben  und  ausgewahlte  Schriften.  Blberf., 
1860-1861.      (Still   the   best  Biography   for   Scientific   purposes.) 

Herrlinger,  Th.,  Die  Theologie  Melanchthons  in  ihrer  geschlchtl.  Entwlck- 
lung,    Gotha.      F.    A.      Perthes,    1870. 

Bindsell,   Ph.   Melanchthonis  eplstolae,   etc.    Halle,   1874. 


CONTENTS  Ivii 

Herrlinger,  Th.,  Die  Stellung  Melanchthons  zum  Kirchllchen  Bekenntnlss. 
Gotha.    F.    A.    Perthes,    1S79. 

Hartfelder,   Mel.    als   Pracep.    Germaniae.    Berlin,    1889. 

Hartfelder,    K.    Melanchthoniana    Paedagogica.      Leipzig,    1892. 

Jacobs,   Mel.    1894.    (In  M'Clintoclt   and   Strong.) 

Troltsob,  Vernunft   u.   Offenbarung,   bei  J.    Gerhard  und   Mel.,    1895. 

Hanssleiter,  Aus   der  Schule   Melanchthons,    1897. 

Sell,  Mel.  u.  die  deutsche  Reformation  bis  1531  (Schriften  des  Vereins  fiir 
Reformations — Gesch.,    56). 

Seeberg,  Die  Stellung  Mels.  in  der  Gesch.  der  Kirche  und  der  Wissenschaft, 
2    ed.    Erlangen,    1897. 

Tsohaokert,   Melanchthons  Bildungs-ideale.    Gottingen,    1897. 

Bomeniann,  W.   Mel.   als  Schulmann.   Magdeburg,   1897. 

Kcltzseh,  Mels.  Loci  comm..  Die  erste  prot.-evang.  Ethik  (in  Festschrift 
fiir    Fricke).      Leipzig.    1897. 

Hofstatter,  Die  Augsburgische  Konfession  in  ihrer  Bedeutung  fiir  das  kirch- 
liche  Leben  der  Gegenwart.   Leipzig,   1897. 

Kicbard,   J.    W.    Philip   Mel.,    the   Protestant    Preceptor   of  Ger.,   1898. 

Riimer,  H.,  Die  Entwicklung  des  Glaubensbegriffs  bei  Mel.  nach  dessen 
dogmatischen  Schriften.    Diss.      Bonn,    1902. 

Ellinger,   G.,    Ph.    Mel.    Ein   Lebensbild.   Berlin,    1902. 

Clemen,  O.  Supplementa  Melanchthoniana.  Werke  Ph.  Melanchthons,  die 
im  Corpus  Reformatorum  vermisst  werden.  Hrsg.  v.  d.  Melanchthon-Kom- 
mission  des  Vereins  f.  Reformationsgeschichte.  1.  Abt.  Dogmatische  Schrif- 
ten.   hrsg.   V.    1    Heft  L.    1909. 

Kim,  O.,  Melanchthon,  Herzog  Real.  Enc.  XII.  513  ff.  New  SchafC-Her- 
zog.    VII.    1910.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  p.     609 

Chapter  XXV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE    NEED    OF   A    CONCORDIA   REALIZED,    AND    ITS 
ORIGIN  ATTEMPTED. 

four  periods  of  Development 

the  Variata  insufficient 

the  Situation,  1560-1576 

the  Statements  of  xVndreae  in  1569 

the  Six  Sermons  sent  to  Chemnitz  in  1573 

the  commission  of  Augustus 

the  Torgau  Book 

the  Bergen  Book 

the  Calvinistic  Protests 

For  the  official  dot-nments  connected  with  the  Lichtenberg  CoOTention,  v. 
Hutter,   Cap.   IX.,   pp.    75   et   seqq. 

For    historical    details,    v.    Anton,    pp.    156    et    seqq. Planck,    VI.,    437    et 

seqq. Walcb,   Introductio,    pp.    715    et   seqq. Heppe,   III.,    84    et   seqq. 

Pressel    in    Jahrbucher    fur    Deutsche    Theologie,     1877,     pp.     10    et    seqq. 

Miiller's  Die  Symbolischen  Biicher,  Einleitung.  IX.  edition,  p.  Ixxl. Fritschel, 

Quellen  aus  der  Zeit  der  Cone.  Formel.  Dubuque.   1910. 

V.    also    Xhomasius,    Dogmenge.=chichte. Seeberg,    Hist,    of    Doctrines.    II. 

347-390. SchaflF,  Creeds  of  Christendom. Kraatb,  Conservative  Refor- 
mation.  V.    Literature    under    Chap.    XX.     ....  p.    637 


Iviii  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XXVI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  FOEMULA  OF  CONCOKD:  ITS  ORIGIN,  BASED  ON 
KOLDE'S  INTRODUCTION,  ETC. 

the  six  Controversies  and  the  Points  at  issue 
the  pliant  and  scholastic  nature  of  Melanchthon 
the  rise  of  Calvinism 

the  disruption  of  the  Schmalkald  League  and 
the  helplessness  of  the  Protestants 
the  Corpora  doctrin>ae 
the  efforts  of  Andreae 
the  effort  of  Chemnitz  and  Duke  Julius 
the  effort  of  Augustus 

the   Schwabian    Concordia  sent  to   Augustus   by  Julius,   and 
-  the  Maulbronn  Formula  sent  by  the  South  Germans 
recast  into  the  Torgian  Formula  and  the  Bergen  Book 
the  Subscription  to  the  Formula 

Andreae,  J..  Fuenft  predigen  von  dem  wercke  der  concordlen  und  endllcher 
vergleichung  der  vorgefallenen  streitigen  religionsartickeln  etc.   Dressden  1580. 

Fuegers,    Caspar,     Kurtzer,     wahrhafftiger    und    einfelt.    bericht    von    dem 

buch.     Formula    Concordiae.     Dressden     1580. Selnecceri,    Nic,     Recitationes 

aliquot  1.  de  Consilio  scripti  libri  Concordiae,  et  modo  agendi,  qui  In  sub- 
scriptionibus  servatus  est.  2.  de  Persona  Christi  et  Coena  Dom.  3.  de  auctori- 
tate   et   sententia  Conf.   Aug.    4.   de  auctoritate   Lutheri  et   Philippi.    5.   de   con- 

troversis  nonnullis  articulis.  Lips.  1581. Nunc  denuo  editae  cum  notationibus 

brevibus    ad    cuiusdam    Calviniani,    qui    fingit    sibi    nomen   Jo.    Balaei,    Neapoli 

Nemetum    publicatas    calumnias.    Lips.    1582.     (1583.) Aus    der    Christlichen 

Concordia  erklerung  etlicher  streitiger  Artickel:  Deutsch  und  Lateinisch. 
gegeneinander  ueber.  Ex  forma  Christianae  Concordiae  Declaratio  Articulorum 
qui  post  D.  Lutheri  obitum  in  controuersiam  in  Ecclesiis  et  Academiis  A.  C. 
addictls   uenerunt.    Opera   et   priuato   studio   Selnecceri,   Nic.   Lipslae   1582. 

Chemnitii,    Chr.,    Collegium    theol.    super    Form.    Cone.    Jen.    1659.    vermehrt 

mit    Zusaetzen    aus    der    Apologie    und    anderen    Schriften.     1761. Kangonls, 

Conr.  Tiburt,  Haereticorum  et  Syncretistarum  Obex  Formula  Concordiae,  d.  i. 
Warhaffte  Erzehlung  des  Ursprungs.  Fortgangs  und  Ansehens  der  Concordien- 

Formul.    Hamburg    u.    Frankf.    16S3.    12. Musaci,   Jo.,    Praelect.    in    epitomen 

F.   C.   Jen.    1701. Acta  F.   C.   in  Bergensi  Coenobio  tempore   Praesidis  Ulneri 

a.  1577.  revisae  ex  Hutteri  Cone,  cone,  Goebelii  Progr.  jubil.,  Arnoldi  Haeret. 
hist,  et  Saccii  concione  funebri  in  Abb.  Ulnerum,  ace.  Oratio  Sim.  Frid.  Hahnii 
de  ortu  et  fatis  Coen.   Bergensis  a.    1706.   habita.   Franc,   ad   M.    (s.   a.)    [1707.] 

fol. Ace.    H.    Meibomii    Chronicon    Bergense    contin.    a.    S.    F.    Hahnio,    ibid. 

1708    fol. Loescher,    Val.,     Hlstoria    motuum.     Lipsiae    1723.     (torn.    III.     lib. 

VI,    c.    5    and    9) Balthasar,    Jac.    H.,    Historie    des    Torg.    Buchs.    als    des 

naehesten  Entwurfs  des  Berg.  Concordienbuchs — nebst  andern  zur  Geschichte 
des  Concordienbvichs  gehoerigen  und  bisher  unbekannten  Nachr,  etc.  Greifs- 
wald  und  Leipzig.   St.    1-6.   1741-44.   4.   St.   7.   1-4  &  St.    5,   8.   1756. Anton,  Jo. 


CONTENTS  lix 

Nik.,  Geschlchte  der  Konkordicnformel,  etc.   Leipzig  1779.   8. Planck.  G.  J., 

lieschichte  des  protestantischen   Lehrbegiifts.    2.   Aufl.   Leipzig  1791.   8.   Bd. 

Tbomatiius,    Gottfr.,    Das    Bekenntnis    der    evangelisch-lutherischen    Kirclie    In 

der  Konsequenz  seines  Prinzips.   Nuernberg  1S48. Heppe,  H.,   Geschiclite  des 

deutschen    Protestantisijius.    Marburg    1852    ft.    4    Bde. Same,    Der    Text    der 

Bergischen    Konkordienformel    verglichen    mit   dem   Text   der   schwaeb.    Konk., 

der  schwaebisch-saechsisclien  Konk.   und  des  Torg.   Buches.   Marburg  1857. 

Beck,   K.,   Joh.    Friedricii    d.    Mittlere.    2    Bde.    Weimar   1858. Frank,   Fr.    H. 

R.,  Die  Theologie  der  Konkordienformel  historisch-dogmatisch  entwickelt  und 
beleuchtet.  Erlangen.  4  Bde.  1858-1865. Goeschel,  K.  Fr.,  Die  Konkordien- 
formel   nach    Ihrer    Geschichte.    Lelire    und    kirchlichen    Bedeutung.    Altes    und 

Neues    aus    dem    Schatze    der    Kirche.    Leipzig    1858. Preger,    W.,    Matthias 

Flacius   Illyrikus.    2   Bde.    Erlangen   1859   ff. Pressel,   Th.,    Kurfuerst   Ludwig 

von    der    Pfalz    und    die    Konkordienformel.    Zeitschr.    f.    histor.    Theol.    37    Bd. 

(1867.) Mueller,   Karl,    Die   Bckenntnisse   des   Lutherthums.    Preuss.    Jahrbb. 

Bd.    63.    (1889.)    S.    121   ff. Wolf,   G.,    Zur   Geschichte   des   deutschen   Protest- 

antismus.  1555-59.  Berlin  1888. — Seeberg,  R.,  Konkordienformel.  Prot.  Real- 
enzykl.    3.    Bd.    10.    732    seqq.  ......  p.    641 

Chapter  XXVII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 
THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  THE  CONCORDIA,  AND  THE 
AUGUSTANA  PRESERVED. 

not  introduced  by  papal  or  imperial  Mandate 

but  Sent  Fortli  and  Discussed  throughout  Germany 

none  other  so  fully  Tested 

the  Quedlinburg  Declaration 

a  good  cause  not  accountable  for  the  sins  of  Individuals 

the  Signatories  not  condemnable 

the  adverse  judgment  of  Planck 

more  Unanimous  than  would  be  possible  in  America  today 

no  creed  really  Oecumenical 

no  undue  political  Influence 

the  opinion  of  Kolde  and  of  Miiller 

the  extent  of  the  Adoption 

rejected  by  Calvinistic  States 

the  Lutherans  who  failed  to  subscribe 

the  opinion  of  Planck,  Kollner  and  Thomasius 

the  real  confessional  Validity 

Hutter,    Concordia   Concors.    1614.    Libri    Chrlstianae    Concordiae    ExpHcato. 

1608. Carpzov,   Isagoge  in   Libros   Symbolicos.    1665. Schliisselberg,   Cata- 

logus     Hereticorum.     1597-1599. Anton,     Geschichte     der     Concordienformel. 

1779. L,o8cher,   Historia  Motuum.   III. ^Walch,  Einlt.  in  d.   Rel.   Strtgktn. 

d.    ev.    L.    Kirche,    IV. Kollner,    Die    Symbolik    der    Luth.    Kirch.    Hamburg, 

1S37. Johannsen,  Ueber   die  Unterschriften   des   Concordienbuches,    in    Nied- 

ners    Zeitschrift    fur    histor.    Theologie,    1847. Goschel,     Die      Concordien — 

Formel,    Leipzig,    1858,    242-250. ^^liiller,    Symb.    Biicher,    Einleit.    CVII. 

Krauth,    The    Conservative     Reformation. The    Decree    of    Upsala.    Jacobs, 

Book   of  Concord.   II.    304-307. v.  Also  Literature  in   Chapters  XXXVI  and 

XXXVII.        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  p.    661 


Ix  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XXVLQ. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

IS  THE  FOKMULA  OF  CONCORD  A  CONFESSION? 

who  made  the  Negative  reply 

Zwinglians,    Calvinists,    Roman    Catholics,   Philippists, 
Church      of      England,      and      Eighteenth-Century 
Rationalists 
the  Objections  usually  offered 
the  answer  to  our  Own  Times 
the  Formula  does  not  throttle  Freedom  today 
the  answer  of  History 

the  formula  is  a  confession  Historically 
the  answer  to  the  objection  of  Multiplicity,  and 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  Sufficient 
the  latter  has  not  Sufficed 
the  former  has  not  Multiplied  the  Confessions 

V.  Titles  in  the  footnotes  of  XXVIII,  681  seqq.         ...  p.  681 

Chapter  XXIX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  ANSWER  OF  A  PROVIDENTIAL  ORIGIN  TO  THE 
QUESTION,  IS  THE  FORMULA  A  CONFESSION? 

a  crying  Need 

the  Confusion  of  the  Reformation  age 

the  failure  of  the  Melanchthonian  AnsAver 

a  definite  and  sufficient  Call 

history  of  its  Origin  and  Completion  in  the  light  of  the  call. 

f.   Literature  In  Preceding  and  Following  chapters.  .  .  p.   700 

Chapter  XXX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  ANSWER  TO  THE  CRITICISMS  MADE  ON  THE 
MOTIVES  AND  MEN,  AS  TOUCHING  THE  QUES- 
TION, IS  THE  FORMULA  A  CONFESSION? 

the  Motive  of  the  Formula  not  a  party  one 
the  Testimony  of  the  Formula  itself 
the  Men  of  the  Formula 

Andreae,  Chemnitz,  Selnecker. 

Hiitter,    Concordia    Concors. Anton,    Gesch.    der    C.-F. Loscher,    Hist. 

motuum. Salig,    Vollstandigc    Historic,     1730. Planck,    Gesch.    des    prot. 


CONTENTS  1 


XI 


Lehrbegrlffs    V. Thomasius,    Das    Bekenntnls    der    evangellsch-Iutherlschen 

Klrche    In    der    Consequenz    seines    Prinzips,    1848. Gasz,    Gesch.    der    prot. 

Dogm.   in  ihrem  Zuhammenh.   mit  der  Theol.    Uberh.   I,   1854. Frank,  Gesch. 

der  prot.  Theol.,  1862;   v.  also  Calinich. 

Rethmeyer,  der  beriihmten  Stadt  Braunschweig  Kirchen-Historle,   1707,   pars 

III,    1710. Gotze,   Septenarius   dessert,    memor.    D.    N.   Selnecceri,    1723,    1724, 

1725. Johaonseii,   Zeltschr.    f.    hist.    Th.,    1853. Pressel,   Martin   Chemnitz, 

1862. Lentz,     Dr.      Martin     Chemnitz,      Gotha,      1866. Hachfeld,      Martin 

Chemnitz,  1867. Pressel,  Jarbb.  f.  d.  Theol.   I,  1877. Sebiitz,  Vita  Davidis 

Chytraei. Andrea,    J.    V.,    Fama    Andreana    reflorescens,    Strassburg,    1630. 

Adami  Vitae  Theol.   636. Fittbogen,  Jacob  Andrea.,  Leipsic,   1881.   KL,  I.  818- 

821. Kolde,   Prot.   Real   Encyk.  .  .  ,  .  p.    717 


Chapter  XXXI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  ANSWER  TO  THE  FORMULA'S  OUTER  FORM  TO 
THE  QUESTION,  IS  THE  FORMULA  A  CON- 
FESSION? 

the  Title  of  the  Formula  and  its  Language 
no  confessional  claim  for  the  Solida  Declaratio 
is  the  Formula  a  "Commentary" 

in  what  sense  it  is  a  mere  Repetition,  and  not  a  new  confession 
a  comparison  with  the  Form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
why  the  Formula  presents  doctrine  by  Antagonism 
in  what  sense  the  Formula  is  a  Commentary 
is  the  Formula  a  treatise  on  Dogmatics 
does  the  Formula  represent  all  types  of  Lutheranism 
does  sharpness  of  Logical  Form  condemn,  with  the  Epitome 
as  a  confession 

Miiller,  Die  SymboUschen  Bticher. Krautb,  The  Conservative  Reformation. 

p.   729 

Chapter  XXXII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  ANSWER  OF  THE  FORMULA'S  SUBJECT  MATTER 
TOUCHING  THE  QUESTION,  IS  THE  FORMULA 
OF  CONCORD  A  CONFESSION? 

the  Subjects  Treated  were  subjects  of  the  day 

they  were  agitating  the  whole  Christian  World 

the  need  of  settling  them  was  felt  by  the  Melanchthonians 

the  Formula  starts  by  planting  itself  firmly  on  Scripture 

treats  the  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity,  centering  all  in  Christ 

the  Formula  treats  of  Christ^ — His  Work,  Presence,  Person 


Ixii  CONTENTS 

it  touches  the  greater  Questions  of  Christian  Faith 
original  sin 
man's  freedom 
infusetl  righteousness 
law  or  gospel 
the  persf  n  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament 

Frank,    Die    Theologie    der    Concordienformel. Tbomasius,    Dogmengescb- 

Ichte. Miiller,    Symbolische    Biicher,    Einleit. Kropatscheck,    Das   Schrlft- 

prinzip   der    lutherischen    Kirche. Romberg,    Die    Lebre    Lutbers    v.    d.    hell. 

Schrlft.   Wittbg.    1868.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  p.    746 

Chapter  XXXIII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST    AND    THE    FORMULA    OF 
CONCORD. 

the  Person  of  Christ  the  Centre 

the  Consequences  in  Lutheran  theology 

the  'Person  of  Christ'  in  the  Formula 

not  a  new  doctrine  to  bolster  up  the  Real  Presence 

the  divergence  here  between  the  two  Branches  of  Protestantism 

the  doctriiie  of  Christ  is  rooted  in  Luther 

Luther  on  the  Person  of  Christ  in  detail 

Whence  Luther  derived  this  doctrine 

Luther's  rescue  of  the  Sacrament 

the  Communicatio  Idiomatum  vs.  the  Zwinglian  Alloesis 

the  Misrepresentation  of  the  Lutheran  Faith 

the  Personal  Omnipresence  a  fundamental  fact  in  the  Person 

the  most  potent  Objection  to  the  Personal  Omnipresence 

the  critique  of  Schaff 

the  inconsistency  of  critics  of  the  'Ubiquity' 

the  scriptural  origin  of  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum 

the  testimony  of  the  Ancient  Creeds 

the  testimony  of  the  Church  Fathers 

the  Formula  and  the  Living  Christ 

Brentius,    De    PersonaU    Unlone.    Tubing.    ir>61. Chemnitz,    De    Duab,    nat 

in     Christo.       Jena.,     1570. Hunnius    Aeg.,     De     Persona    Christl.       Frankf., 

1597. Tbummius,  Majestas  Jesu   Christl.   Tubing,    1621. Wolf,   Eutychian- 

ism.      Lutheranor.      Wlttenb.,    1680. L-oscher,    C,    Cons,    orthod.    de    Christo. 

W'ittenb.     1699. Sartoriu8,    D.     L.     v.     Christl     Person     u.     Werk.     1845. 

Sohaeckenburger,    Zur    Klrchl.    Chrlstol,    1848. Goss,    Die    L.    v.    d.    Person 

Christl.    1856. Thomasius,    Chrl.sti    Person    u.    Werk.    1857. Frank,    The- 
ologie   der    Konkordien    Formel.    1858. Plitt,    Elnleltung    in    die    Augustana. 

1868. Krauth,    Conservative    Reformation,    Chap.    X.    1871. Kostlin,    The- 
ology   of    Luther,    English.     1897. Seeberg,    History    of    Doctrines,     English. 

1905. 


CONTENTS  Ixiii 

Dleckboff,    Die    evang.    Abendmahlslehre    Im    Reformatlonszeitalter.    Erster 

Band.     Gottingen,    1854. Schultz,    Luthers    Ansicht    v.    d.    Methode    u.    den 

Grenzen   der   dogmatischen    Aussagen    uber   Gott,    ZKG.    1880;    Gottheit    Christ! 

1881,   186   ft. Brieger,   Der.   Glaube   Luthers  in  s.   Freiheit  von  menschlichen 

Autoritaten.    Leipzig,    isy2. Kostlin,    'I  he    Theology    of    Luther    In    Its    His- 
torical  Development  and   Inner  Harmony,    1897.   Tr.    by   Hay. Kropatseheck, 

Occam   und   Luther.   Giitersloh,    1900. Jager,   Luthers   religioses   Interesse   an 

seiner    Lehre    von    der    Realprasenz.     Giessen,     1900. Kugelgen,    v.    Luthers 

Auffassung   der   Gottheit   Christi.    2.    A.    Leipzig,    1901. Keever,   A   Man   Who 

Set   Luther  Thinking    (Peter   D'Ailly),    Lutheran    Church    Review   XX,    49,    297; 

XXI,   213. HemnaoD,  Der  Verltehr  des  Christen   mit  Gott   Im   Anschluss  an 

Luther  dargestellt.    Stuttgart,    1886,   6.   A.    1908.  ...  p.    770 

Chapter  XXXIV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

CONCORDIA  THE    CHURCH'S  CONFESSION  OF  CHRIST 

the  Material  of  Concordia 

its  Field  is  salvation 

its  Subject  is  Christ 

the  Church  should  stand  upon  the  Concordia 

it  treats  some  other  doctrines,  but 

it  is  the  great  confession  of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ 

Frank,    Die    Theologie    der    Concordienformel. Krautb,    The    Conservative 

Reformation.  .  .......  p.    817 

Chapter  XXXV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

WHAT  THE   FORMULA  OF  CONCORD  ACCOMPLISHED 
AS  A  CONFESSION  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

it  is  the  substance  of  the  Gospel 

set  together  after  Protestantism  had  been  tested 

it  is  the  confession  of  Teachers  and  Congregations 

it  rescued  the  church  from  a  petty  doctrinal  Territorialism 

it  recovered  the  church  from  the  weaknesses  of  its  Friends 

the  estimate  of  Seeberg 

it  preserved  the  existence  of  the  Church 

it  made  possible  a  substantial  Catholic  Evangelical  Church 

it  guarded  the  relation  of  the  Divine  and  the  Human  in  all  the 

great  doctrines 
it  settled  the  question  of  Justification,  of  Synergism,  and  of 

the  Sacraments 
it  is  the  white-winged  standard  of  Peace 

it  is  the  first  permanent  synthesis  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
it  deserves  to  be  accepted  by  the  Lutheran  Church 

Seeberg,    Formula    of    Concord    in     Herzog-Hauck    Real.     Cyk. Callnicb, 

Kampf  und  Untergang  des  Melanchthonismus  in  Kursachsen  in  d.  J.   1570  bis 
1674  und  die  Schlcksale   seiner  vornehmsten   Haupter.    1866. 


Ixiv  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XXXVI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  BOOK  OF  CONCOKD.    THE  FACTS  OF  ITS  OKIGIN 
AND  PUBLICATION.    KOLDE'S  ESSAY. 

its  Publication  began  in  1578. 

the  adoption  of  the  Three  General  Creeds 

the  Earliest  editions  of  the  Book  of  Concord 

the  Title  of  the  Book  of  Concord 

the  Arrangement  of  the  Book  of  Concord 

the  Later  editions 

The  Earliest  and  the  Most  Important  Editions  of  the  Book  of  Concord. 
(a)   German. 

Concordia.  Christliche,  Widerholete,  einmUtige  Bekenntniis  nachbenanter 
ChurfUrsten,  Fursten  und  Stende  Augspurgischer  Confession,  und  der- 
selben  zu  ende  des  Buchs  underschriebener  Theologen  Lere  und  Glaubens,  Mit 
angeheffter.  In  Gottes  wort,  als  der  einigen  Richtschnur,  wolgegrundter  erk- 
larung  etlicher  Artickel,  bei  welchen  nach  D.  Martin  Luthers  seligen  Abster- 
ben  disputation  und  streit  vorgefallen.  Aus  einhelliger  vergleichung  und  beuehl 
obgedachter  Churfursten,  Fursten  und  Stende,  derselben  Landen,  Klrchen, 
Schulen  und  Nachkommen,  zum  underricht  und  warnung  in  Druck  vorfertlget. 
Mit   Churf.   G.   zu   Sachsen  befreihung.   Dressden.   M.    D.    LXXX.   fol. 

rConcerning    the   variation    in    the    first   prints   of   this   edition,    v.    the 
treatment   in   the  chapter.] 

Concordia. Magdeburgk   15S0.    4. 

Tubingen  1580.  fol.  (without  the  Tauf-  und  Traubiichlein,  with  variations  In 
the   signatures). 

Dressden  liiSl.  4.  (without  the  Tauf-  und  Traubiichlein,  with  addition  of  the 
signatures   of   the   Saxon   theologians   following   the   first   edition). 

Frankfurt  a.  d.   O.   1581.   fol. 

Magdeburgk  1581.  4.  (with  the  Preface  of  the  Administr.  Joachim  Frledrich 
of  Juli    10,    1580.) 

Magdeburgk  1580.    4.    (but   later  than   the  above.) 

Heydelberg  1582.  fol.  (without  Tauf-  und  Traubiichl.  and  Catalog,  testlmon. 
On  the  other  hand  there  here  are  found  first, — and  that  ahead  of  the  others — 
the  signatures  of  the  Palatine  theologians,  then  those  of  Steier,  Krain  and 
Karnthen.) 

Heydelberg  1582.   fol.    (as   the   former.) 

Dressden   1589.   fol.    (with   Tauf-   und   Traubiichl.) 

Tubingen  1599.  4.  (with  Tauf-  und  Traubiichl.,  without  the  signatures  of 
the   Austrian   theologians,   but   with    those  of   the   Palatinate.) 

Leipzig  1603.  4.  (with  the  German  Preface  of  the  Elector  Christian  II, 
without  signatures.) 

Stuttgard    1611.    4.    (with   Preface   of   the   Duke  Joh.    Frledrich. 

Leipzig    1622.    4. 

Stuttgarten   1660.    4.    (with   Preface   of   the   Duke   Eberhard.) 

Stuttgart  1681.    4. 

Concordia. With  Heinr.  Pippings  (Int.  to)  Symbol.  Schriften  der  Evan- 
gel.-Luther.  Klrchen.  Leipzig  1703.  4.  (vid.  Acta  Erud.  Lips.  a.  1703,  p.  238  t. 
Here  first  the  Saechsischen  Yisitenartikel). — 2.  Ausgabe  with  Christian  Weiss- 
ens  Conclusions.   Leipzig  1739.    4. 

Christliches  Konkordienhuch  together  with  different  variants  of  previous 
publications,    published    by    Siegm.    Jac.    Baumgarten.     Halle    1747.    2    Tille.    S. 


CONTENTS  Ixv 

(vld.   KrafCts  Neue  Theol.   Bibl.   Bd.   XI.   St.) Christl.  Kouk.-Buoh  with   the 

Leipz.  Theol.  Facultat  introduction,  etc.  Wittenberg  176(j.  8. — 1766. — 1789. 
(vid.  J.  Aug.  Ernestl.  Neue  Theol.  Bibl.  Ed.  1.  S.  752  ft.) — —Die  Synib.  Bucber 
der    evang. -luth.    Kirche.    with    hist.    Einl.,    Anmerkungen,    Erorterungen,    etc., 

published    by   J.    W.    Sfhiipff.    Dresden.    1.    Teil,    1826.    2.    Teil,    1827.    S. Con- 

eordia.      Die      Symb.      Hiicher      der      evang. -luth.      Kirche,      with      Einleitung. 

published     by     F.     A.     iiiitlie.     Leipzig     1830.     8. Evang.     Konkordienbuoh 

Oder  saemt.  in  dem  Konkordienbuche  enthaltenen  symbolische  Glaubensschrif- 
ten  der  evang. -luth.  Kirche.  With  Erlauterungen  und  kurzen  geschichtlichen 
Bemerkungen  aufs  Neue  deutsch  herausgegeben  von  Dr.  J.  A.  Detzer.  Nuern- 
berg   1830.     1842.     1847. Evangelisi'hes     Konkordienbucb     oder    die     symbol. 

Biicher  der  evang.  luth.  Kirche.  With  gescbichtl.  Einleit.  und  Anmerk. 
herau.sgeg.  von  Fr.  Wilh.  Bodemann.  Hannover  1843.  (The  Apology  is  not 
in   the  original  German  text  but  in  an   original  translation  from  the  Latin.) 

Couoordlenbucb,  das  ist,  die  symbolischen  Biicher  der  ev.  luth.  Kirche. 
Neue,  nach  dem  Urtext  voni  Jahre  1580  revldirte  Ausgabe.  Festgabe  fiir  das 
Jubeljahr   ISSO.      St.   Louis,   Mo.    1S80. 

(b)  Latin. 
Concordia. — Pia  et  Vnaninil  consensu  repetita  Confessio  Fidel  et  doctrinae 
Electorum,  Principum  et  Ordlnum  Imperii,  alque  eorundem  Theologorum,  qui 
Augustanam  Confessionem  amplectuntur  et  nomina  sua  huic  libro  subscrip- 
serunt.  Cui  ex  sacra  scriptura,  vnica  ilia  verilatis  norma  et  ri-gula,  quorun- 
dam  Articulorum,  qui  post  Doctoris  Martini  Luther,  felicem  ex  hac  vita  ex- 
Itum,  in  controuersiam  vener-nt  solida  accessit  Declaratlo.  Loiiiinuni  Con- 
slllo  et  Mandate  eorundem  Electorum,  Principum  ac  Ordinum  Imperii,  et 
erudiendis  et  monendis  subditis,  Ecclesiis  et  Scholis  suis,  ad  memoriain  pos- 
teritatis  typis  vulgata  Lipsiae.  Anno  MDLXXX.  Cum  gratia  et  privilegio 
Elect.   Sax.   4. 

[Concerning    the    peculiarities   of    this    (private)    edition    of    Selnecker, 
not  recognized  by   him,   f.   the   text  of  the  chapter.] 

Conoordia.   Pia   —   — -   denuo    typis   vulgata.    I..Ipsiae    15S4.    4. 

[The  first  authentic  edition  of  the  Latin  Text,  bearing  the  same  title 

as  the  edition  above,  yet  as   the  signatures  are  wanting,    the   following 

words  are  also  lacking  in  the  title:  et  nomina  subscripserunt.] 

Concordia. — Lipsiae   1602.    S.    (With   the   Praefatio   Christian   II.,   without   the 

Tauf-  und  Traubuechlein,   without   signatures.) — Lipsiae   1606.   1612.   1618.    1626. 

8. — Stetini    1654.    8a.    E.    Jenae    1654. — Lipsiae    1654.    8. — Stregnesiae    1669.    8. — 

Lipsiae    1669.     8. — 1677. — Cum    Appendlce    tripartita    Dr.     Adaini    Rechenbergii 

1678.    8. — 1698. — 1712. — 1725. — 1742. 

Concordia. — Cura  et  cum  annotat.    Phil.   Muelleri.   Jenae   1705.   4. 

[The  text  of  this  edition  is  unusable  because  it  follows  the  Selnecker 
edition   of   loSO   with   all   the   errors   of   that   edition.      Otherwise   it   con- 
tains very   valuable   historical   additions.] 
Ecclesiae    Evangelicae    libri    symbolici.    tria    Symb.    Oecum,    Aug.    Conf.    In- 
variatae     eiudem     Apologia,     Artie.     Smalcald.,     uterque     Catech.     D.     Lutherl. 
Form.    Cone.    Pfaffius,    C.    M.,    ex    editionib.    prim,    et    praest.    recensuit.    varias 
lectiones    adiunxit,    allegat.    locorum    penitiorem    indicem    supplevit,    loca    dif- 
ficilia    explanavit    et    vindicavit,    introtluctionem    histor.     praemisit,     atque    In 
Appendice   Articulos  XVII.    Torgenses,    Confutationem   A.    C.    a   Theologis   Pon- 
tificiis  in   Comitiis   Aug.    fatam,    A.    C.   variatam,   primam   Apologiae   A.    C.    de- 
lineationem    etc.    subiunxit.    Tubingae    1730.    8.    vid.    tTnschuld.    Nachr.    a.    1752. 
p.    263. — Libri    symbolici    Eccles.    evang.    lutheranae    accuratius    editi    variique 
generis  animadvers.   ac  disput.   illustrati  a  Mich.   Webero.  Viteb.    1809-11.    8. 

[Copies   of   this   edition,   but   containing   only   the   oecumenical   creeds, 
both    catechisms    and    the    Augsburg    Confession    wilh    the    Confutation, 
are  rare,  as  almost  the  whole  edition  was  destroyed  in  a  conflagration.] 
Libri  Symbolici   ecclesiae   evangelicae.    Ad  fldem  optim.   exemploi-um  recens. 
-J.   A.    H.    Tittraann.    Lipsiae    1S17.    8. — 1827. — Libri    Symbolici    ecclesiae    evan- 
gelicae   sive    Concordia.    Recens.    C.    A.    Hase.    Lipsiae    1827.    8. — 1837. — 1S45. — 

E 


Ixvi  CONTENTS 

Llbri  Symbolici  ecclesiae  luther.  ad  editt.  principes. — rec.  praecipuam  lectlon- 
uin  diversitatem  notav.,  Christ.  II.  ordinunique  evangelicor,  praefationes,  artlc. 
Saxon,  visitator  et  Confut.  A.  C.  Pontific.  adj.  H.  H.  Guil.  Meyer,  Goettlng. 
1S30.  8. — Libri  Symbolici  ecclesiae  Lutheranae.  Pars  1.  Synib.  oecum.,  Conf. 
Aug.  et  Apol.  Confess.  Pars  II.  Art.  Smalcald.  et  Catech.  uterque.  Pars  III. 
Form.    Concordia.    Ad   editionem   Lipsiensem   A.    15S4.    Berolinl.    1857. 

(c)    German-Iiatin. 

Concordia.  Germanlco-Latina  ad  optima  et  antiqulss.  exempla  recognlta, 
adjectls  fideliter  allegator.  dictor.  S.  Scr.  capitibus  et  vers,  et  testimonlor. 
P.  P.  aliorumquqe  Scriptorum  locis — notisque  aliis.  nee  non  indicibns,  c.  ap- 
prob.  Facult.  Theol.  Lips.  Witt,  et  Rostoch.  Studio  Ch.  Reineocii.  Lipsiae 
1708.    4. — 1735. 

Christliches  Koncordieubucb.  Deutsoh  und  Lateinisch  mit  hi.storisclien  Ein- 
leitungen  J.    G.   Walcbs.  Jena   1750.   S. 

Die  symbolischen  Biieher  der  evangelisch-luthori.schen  Kirche,  deutsch  und 
lateinisch.  Neue  sorgfiiltig  durch-ge.<iehene  Au.sgabe,  mit  den  siichsischen 
Visitations-Artikeln,  einem  Verzpichnis  abweichender  Lesarten,  historlschen 
Einleitungen  und  ausfiihrlichpn  Registern.  Besorgt  von  J.  T.  Miiller.  Stutt- 
gart,   1S4S. 

(d)    Translations. 

Dutch:   Concordia   of  Lutherische   Geloofs  Belydenis   In't   licht   gegeven   door 

Zach.     Dezlus.     Rotterdam,     1715,     8vo. Swedisb:     Libri     Concordiae    Ver.slo 

Suecic.    Christeliga,    och   Uprepade   och    Laras,    etc.      Norkoping,    1730,    4to. 

English:  The  Christian  Boolv  of  Concord,  or  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church,  tran.slated  by  Ambro.fe  and  Socrates  Henkel,  (two 
Lutheran  clergymen  of  Virginia),  with  the  assistance  of  several  other  Luth- 
eran   clergymen.      Newmarket,    Virginia,    1851;     2d    ed.    revi.sed,    1854. The 

Book  of  Concord;  or.  The  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church.   Jacobs.     Philadelphia,   1SS2. 

THE   CHIEF   CONTROVERSIAL   PUBLICATIONS. 

Theologoruni  et  Ministrorum  Ecclesiarum  in  ditione  Jo.  Casimirl  Palatini 
Admonitio  Christiana  de  libro  Concordiae,  queni  vocant,  a  quibusdam  Theo- 
logis,  nomine  quorundam  Oidinum  Aug.  Confessionum.  edita  Neustadii  in 
Palatlnatu.  1584.  4. — Warhaffte  und  chrlstliche  Veiantwortung  der  Predi- 
ger  zu  Bremen — von   der  Person   Christi,    h.   Tauff,   h.   Abendmahl,   Wahl,    Cere- 

monlen.    Bremen    1581.    4. Cbr.   Irenaei,    Examen    des    ersten    Artickels    und 

des  Wirbelgeistes.  Inr  neuen  Concordienbuche.   15S1. Apologria  Oder  Verantw. 

des  Christi.  Concordien-Buch.s.  Gestellt  durch  etl.  hierzu  verord.  Theol.,  a. 
1583.  Heydelberg  1583.  WahrhafCte  Christi.  und  gegruendte  Widerlegung  der 
vermeynten  Entschuld.  der  Prediger  zu  Bremen  in  den  Art.  von  der  Person 
Christi  und  H.  Abendtmal.  Heydelberg  1583.  fol.  1.  and  2.  part  of  the  Erfurt 
Apology  of  Tim.  Kircliner.  Nick.  Selecker  and  Mart.  Chemnitz,  usually  called 
the  Erfurt  Book.  Part  3:  Refutatio  Irenaei,  Grucndtl.  Eerioht  auf  das  Ex- 
amen M.   Chr.  Irenaei.   Heydelberg  1583.  fol. The  same  1593.   4. Apologia 

Oder  Verantwort.  des  Christi.  Concord. -Buchs  etc.  Dressden  1584.  fol.  (Edi- 
tions Magdeburg  15S4.  Erfurt  1584  etc.  Lat.  Heidelberg  15S3.  f.)  Part  4  (vid. 
Sallg.  Historie  der  Augsb.  Konfession  I,  744  f.):  Gruendliche  wahrhafCtige  His- 
torie  von  der  Augspurgischen  Confession  etc.  Leipzig  1584.  Magdeburg  15S4, 
also  called  Historie  des  Sakranientsstreits,  directed  against  Ambrosius  Wolf 
(Christ.  Herde.sianus),  Historie  der  Augsburgischen  Confession,  Wider  die 
Patres    Bergeii.'^es    und    anderen    Vbiquitisten    verfuehrerischen    Betrug.     Neu- 

stadt  a.   d.   Hardt  15S0.   4. Aeg.  Hunnii,  Nothwend.   Verantwort,   des  christi. 

Concordibuchs  wider  Dan.  Hoffmannl  Bescliuld.  I.  als  sollt  des  H.  Christi 
nach  s.  Men.schl.  Natur.  Gegenwaert.  In  Regierung  aller  Creat.  im  Buch  der 
Concord,    nicht    begriffen    sein;    II.    dass    das    Concordilmch    nach    allgem.    Un- 

terschreibung    gefehrlicher   Weiss    mutirt    sey.    Frankfurt    am    Mayn    1597. 

Also.   Dess.    Widerleg.    der   ungegruendten   Aufllagen,    and    Dan.    Hoffmann   — — 


CONTEN"TS  Ixvii 

Hunnll    Bekendnis    verdaechtig    zu    machen    sich    unterstanden    beneben 

verantwort.     des    Concordibuchs.     Frankf.     a.     M.     1597.     4. Leonb.    Hutteri, 

Explicatio    libri   chr.    Concordiae.    Witeb.    1608    u.    oefter. Kud.    HospinianuH, 

Concordia    discors    h.    e.    de    origine    et    progressio    Formulae    Bergensis.    Tig. 

1607. Genev.    1687. Against    thi.s:    Leouh.   Hutteri,    Concordia  concors,    d© 

orlg.   et.   progressu  F.   C. — liber  unus.    Witeb.    1014   lol.    1621.    4.    Lips.    1690.   4. 
OLDER    PUBLICATIONS    ON    THE    HISTORY. 
Feuerlinl,  Bibliotheca  symb.   evang.-Iutlierana — aucta  et   locuplet. — ed.   J.   B. 
RIederer.    Norlmb.    176S.     2    Tom.    8. — Jo.    Bened.    Carpzov,    Isagoge    in    libros 
ecclealaruni    lutheranarum    symbolicos.      Op.     posthum.     a.     J.     Oleario    contin. 

ed.     J.     B.     Carpzov     (fillus),     Lipsiae     1665.     4. — 1675. — 1691. — 1699. — 1725. 

Jo.   Georg  Walrh,   Introductio   in   libros    Ecclesiae   Lutheranae   symbolicos,    ob- 

servationlbu.s   hi.storicis   et   theologicis   illustrata.      Jenae   1732.    4. Alb.  Men- 

onis  Verpoortennii  Analecta  ad  libros  Symbolicos  Eccle.sarium  invariat.  Aug- 
ust. Confes.s.  addictarum.  Gedani  1743.  4. — Siegiii.  Jac.  Baunigrarten,  Erleuter- 
ungen  der  Im  christl.  Concordienbuche  enthalt.  symb.  Schr.  der  ev.-luth. 
Klrche,  nebst  elnem  Anhange  von  den  uebrigen  Bekenntnissen  und  feierlichen 
LehrbUchern    in   gfd.    Kirclic    Ilalle    1747-1761.    8.  .  .  .  p.    832 

Chapter  XXXVTI. 
FROM  THE  BOOK  OF  CONCORD  TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY. 

how  Christian  Union  and  the  Formula  have  worked,  according 

summary  of  the  early  Lutheran  Dogmatik  [to  Schatt' 

the  Reaction  in  Calixtus 

the  drop  into  modern  Individualism  in  Europe 

the  modern  situation  in  America 

the  comparative  importance  of  Dogmatic  System 

FROM  THE  BOOK  OF  CONCORD  TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY.  SUMMARY  OF 
THE  LUTHERAN  DOGMATIK. 

The  treatises  of  Cbeninitz,  Hutter,  Gerhard.  Quenstedt,  Calovius,  Baler, 
Hollazius,  Buddeus,  already  mentioned,  also  Sobleiermaoher,  Harms,  Hiifling-, 
Rudelbaoh,  Scbenkel,  Gueri«ke,  Sartorius,  Harless,  Kliefotb,  Liibe,  Vil- 
mar,  Ilengstenberg,  KahuiN,  Tlioinasiiis,  Philippi,  Frank,  Ziifkler,  Krauth, 
Walther,  Fritsoliel,  Spaeth,  Stellhorn  and  Jaeobs,  with  the  following:  Her- 
mann,   Gesch.    der   prot.    Dogm.    184  2. Hase,    Hutter.    rediv.    oder   Dogm.    der 

evang.   luth.   Kirche.   1   Aufl.   182S.   2  Aufl.   1833.   7  Aufl.    1848.   11   Aufl.    1868. 

Review    of    Schmid's    Dogmatik    of    the    Lutheran    Church.    Ev.    Rev.     1,    119. 

July,    1S49. Si'hmid,    H.,    Die    Dogm.    der    ev.-luth.    Kirche,    dargest.    u.    aus 

den   Quellen    belegt.    5.    Aufl.    1863. Gasz,    Gesch.    der   prot.    Dogm.    in    ihrem 

Zusammenh.  mit  der  Theol.  iiberh.  I.  1854.  Die  Grundlegung  u.  der  Dog- 
mat. Heppe,    Dogm.    des    deutsch.    Protestantism    im    16.      Jahrh.      3    Bde. 

1857. Geseh.   der   Dogm.    des   16.    Jahrh. Kahnis,   Luther.    Dogm.    I.    1861. 

S.    15-128.    Gesch.    der    luth.    Dogmatik. Frank,   G.,    Gesch,    der   prot.    Theol. 

I.     1862. Hiindeshagen,     Beitrage     zur     Kirchenverfassungsge.schichte     und 

Kirchenpolitik,  insbesondere  des  Protestantismus,  1864,  Abt.  III.  Die  unter- 
scheidende  religiose  Grundeigentumlichkeit  des  luth.  und  des  ref.  Protestant- 
ismus.  Dorner,    Gesch.    der    prot.    Theol.    1867. Stange,    C,    Das    Dogma 

und  seine  Beurteilung  in  der  neueren  Dogmengeschichte  1898. — ■ — Seeberg,  Die 
Kirche    Deutschlands    im    neunzehnten    Jahrhundert. — Tischhauser,    Geschichte 

der  Evang.  Kirche  Deutschlands.  Basel.   1900,  pp.   343  et  seqq. ^Ritsehl,  Otto, 

Dogmengeschichte     des     Protestantismus     I.     Leipzig,     1908. Hoeneoke,     A., 

Dogmatik.     Milwaukee,   1909. 

An  English  translation  of  Harms  Theses  is  found  in  The  Lutheran  Cy- 
clopedia.   New   York,    1899.  ......  p.    840 


Ixviii  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XXXVIII. 

THE  BOOK  OF  CONCORD  AND  HISTORICAL  LUTHER- 
ANISM  IN  AMERICA. 

Lixtlier  and  the  Discovery  of  America  Contemporary 

was  this  Providential 

the  Lutheran  Church  Coming  to  America 

it  came  on  the  basis  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 

and  the  Book  of  Concord 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  New  York 
the  Swedes  on  the  Delaware 

Justus  Ealckner,  the  first  minister  to  be  ordained 
the  Palatine  Immigration,  with  the  Savoy  Constitution 
John  Caspar  Stoever  and  his  churches  in  Pennsylvania 
Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg  in  Pennsylvania 
the  Book  of  Concord  the  foundation  of  all  his  churches 
the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 
the  words  of  Melanchthon  as  applicable  to  the  Book  of  Concord 

I.    WORKS 

Hallesche  Nacliriohten  von  den  vereinigten  Deutschen  Evangelisch-Luther- 
Ischen  Gemeinen  in  Nord  America.  Mann-Sohmucker-Germann,  AUentown, 
1886. Doriiinentary  History  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Min- 
isterium of  Penn.sylvania  a  n  d  A  d  j  a  c  e  n  t  S  tat  e  s.  1748 
to  1821.  Board  of  Publication  of  the  General  Council  of  the  Evangelical  Lu- 
theran  Church   in    North    America.      Philadelphia,    1898. Nicum,    Geschichte 

des  New  Yorlv'.s  Ministerium.     Reading,  Pa.,   1888. Sehmuuk,  History  of  the 

Lutlieran    Cliurch    in    Penn.sylvania.      General    Council    Board    of    Publication. 

Philadelphia.     I,     1903. Bernheim,     History     of     the     German     Settlements 

and   of  the   Lutheran  Church   in    Nortli   and   Soutli   Carolina.    Philadelphia,    the 

Lutheran    Book    Store,     1872. Mann,    Life    and    Times    of    Henry    Melchior 

Muhlenberg,    Philadelphia,    1887. Schmuoker,    B.    M.,    The    Organization    of 

the    Congregation    in    tlie    Early    Lutheran    Churclies    in    America.      Luth.    Ch. 

Rev.   1887.   VL   188. Wolf,  The  Lutherans  in  America.     New  York,   1889. 

Nicum,  Die   Lutheraner  in   America.      New  York,    1891. Nicuni,  Confessional 

History   of   the   Lutheran   Church   in    the   United   States   in   Pro.    of   Amer.   Soc. 

of   Ch.    Hist.,    Dec,    1891.      New   York,    1892. Griibiier,   Geschichte   der  Luth- 

eri.schen    Kirche    in    America.      I.    St.    Louis,    1S92. .Ja^-obs,    History    of    the 

Lutheran    Church    in    the    TTnited    States.       Christian    Literature    Co.,    1893. 

l.oy-Valentine-Frltsfhel-Jaoobs-Pieper-Horn,     Distinctive     Doctrines,     1893. 

Morris,    Sources    of    Information    on    the    History    of    the    Lutheran    Church    In 

America.      1895. Fritsohel,    G.    J.,    Geschichte    der    Lutherischen    Kirche    In 

Amerika.      Giitersloh,    1896. Oclisenford,    Krotel,    Spaetli,    .Taoobs,    In    Com- 
memoration  of   the   l.'iOth  Anniversary  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  1748- 

1898.    [Reprint    froin   Lutheran    Church    Review.    January   and    April,    1898.1 

JacobN-Haas,     The     Lutheran     Cyclopedia,     New     York,      1S99. Spaeth,     in 

Herzog-Hauck  Realencyklopadie:  Die  lutlierische  Kirche.   in  article  Nordamer- 

Ika,    1903.    Al.<!o   New    Schaff-Herzog,    1910.    VII. Neve-Stump,    Brief    History 

of    the    Lutheran    Church    in    America.     Burlington,    1904. Spaeth,    Charles 

Porterfield    Krauth.    1S9S-1909.    I    330-41,'5.    II.    1-246. Richard,    J.    W.,    The 

Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church.      Philadelphia,   1909. 


CONTENTS  1x13 

II.    ARTICLES  IN  PERIODICALS  AND  SPECIAL 
WORKS 

1833. 

Kurtz        The   Lutheran   Observer. 


uwiild  ) 

1S61     I 


nrecnwii , 

,         ,o^.     ?-'-lhe  Lutheran  Standard. 


1843. 

Waltlier      ]>tr    Luthoraner. 
"  Li^hre  und  Wehre. 

1847. 
Brobst       IJrr  Jugeud-Freund. 

1849. 

The    Evangelical    Keview.    I-XXI.    Gettysburg;.     1849-1870. 

Kraath,   C.    P.,    Sclnnlds    Dogmatik.      I.    119. TlioiiiiiNiiis,    trans,    by    C.    P. 

Krauth,    Sr.,    The    Piinoiple   of   Protestanti.sm.      I.    199;    II.    215-236. Kranth, 

C.    P.,    The   Relation   of   Our   Confessions   to   the   Ref.,    with   An   Outline   of   the 
ISarly  His.  of  the  Augs.    Confession.     I.    234. 

1834-1870. 
Srhmucker,  S.  S.  Elements  of  Popular  Theology,  Andover,  1834,  9th  ed. 
1S80;  Fraternal  Appeal  to  the  American  Churche.s  on  Christian  Union,  New 
York,  1838;  The  American  Lutheran  Church,  historically,  doctrinally  and 
practically  delineated,  Phila.,  1851;  The  Lutheran  Manual  on  Scriptural  Prin- 
ciples, or  The  Augsburg  Confession  illustrated  and  sustained  by  Scripture 
and  Lutheran  Theologians,  Phila.,  1855;  The  Lutheran  Symbols,  or  Vindica- 
tion of  American  Lutheranism,  Baltimore,  1856;  The  Church  of  the  Redeemer 
as  developed  within  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church, 
Baltimore,    1867;    True   Unity   of   Christ's   Church,    New   York,    1870. 

1850. 

May  27,  1850.  The  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  renews  its  adherence  to  the 
Symbolical  Books,  v.  Proceedings  of  Ministerium  in  Pottsville,  p.  12:  "The 
Conference  desired  that  the  Synod  should  give  an  expression  of  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  Symbolical  Books,  and  especially  with  reference  to  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession.  This  opened  a  wide  field  for  discussion.  A 
number  of  the  brethren  embraced  this  opportunity  of  expressing  their  opin- 
ions upon  this  subject.  All  spoke  freely,  and  after  the  matter  had  been  dis- 
cussed for  some  time  in  a  kind  and  harmonious  spirit,  the  following  reso- 
lution  was  unanimously  adopted: 

"Resolved,  That,  like  our  fathers,  we  regard  ourselves  as  a  part  of  the 
one  and  only  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  that  we  too  acknowledge  the 
Word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  ground  of  our 
faith,  and  that  we  too  have  never  renounced  the  Confessions  of  our  Church, 
but   continue  to  regard  them  as  a  faithful  exposition  of  the  Divine  Word." 

Schaeffer,   C.    F.,   Symbolic   Theology.   Ev.   Rev.   I.    457-483. Krauth,   C.    P., 

Sr.,   The   Lutheran  Church   in   the  United  States.     II.   1-16. Schaeflfer,   C.   F., 

Symoolic   Theology.      II.    36-57. Krauth,   C.    P.,    Translation   of   The   Articles 

of    Torgau.      II.    78-84. Hoffman,    J.    N,    The    Ev.    Lutheran    Church.      Her 

Wrongs  and  Difficulties.     Designed  to  Meet  the  Antagonistic  Tendency  of  Our 
Age  and  Country.     II.   265-281. 


Ixx  CONTENTS 

1851. 

Henkel,   Book   of   Concord,   New   Market,    Virginia. Schaeffer,   C.    F.,   The 

Atonement  in   the  Symbolical  Books.      Ev.   Rev.     II.    301-320. — Hoffman,  J.   N., 

The  Symbols.     II.   402-409. Planck,  Effect  of  the  Adoption   of  the   Formula 

of    Concord,    etc.,    translation.      II.    412-4  21. Schmucker,    S.    S.,    Vocation    of 

the   American    Lutheran   Church.      II.    489-512. — Lintner,    G.    A.,    Ecclesiastical 

Standards.      II.    512-523. Schmucker,    S.    S.,    The    Nature    of    the    Saviour's 

Presence  in  the  Eucharist  (an  argument  that  Luther's  interpretation  is  fig- 
urative, that  there  is  no  real  presence,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Ubiquity 
will  not  hold.  The  article  is  summed  up  by  the  author  as  follows:  "That 
there  is  no  real  or  actual  presence  of  the  glorified  human  nature  of  the  Sav- 
iour either  substantial  or  Influential,  nor  anything  mysterious  or  supernatural 
in  the  eucharist;  yet,  that  whilst  the  bread  and  wine  are  merely  symbolic 
representations  of  the  Saviour's  absent  body,  by  which  we  are  reminded  of 
his  sufferings,  there  is  also  a  peculiar  and  special  spiritual  blessing 
bestowed   by   the   divine   Saviour  on   all   worthy   communicants,   by   which   their 

faith   and    Christian    gi-aces    are    confirmed").      III.    34-64. Schaeffer,    C.    F., 

The  Nature  of  Fundamental  Doctrines.  III.  65-87. Schmid,  H.  I.,  Scrip- 
tural   Character   of   the    Lutheran    Doctrine    of   the    Lord's   Supper    (a   reply    to 

Schmucker).      III.    198-255. Thomasius,    trans,    by    C.    P.    Krauth,    Sr.,    The 

Protestant  Principle   (continued).     III.   274,  320. 

1852. 

Hartmann,  "On  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  In  the  Lord's  Supper."  An 
Answer   to    Schmucker.      Kirchen-Freund. 

Schaeffer,   C.    F.,    The    Lutheran    Doctrine   of   Election.      Ev.    Rev.      III.    359- 

3S9. Krauth,  C.   P.,   Martin  Luther.     III.   451-491. L,oy,  M.,  The  Necessity 

and   Authority   of  Apostolic   Tradition.      III.    537-554. Krauth,   C.    P.,   Works 

of   Melanchthon,    a    Review    of    Corpus    Reformatorum.      III.    575. Sartorius, 

The  Necessity  and  Obligations  of  Confessions  of  Faith,  trans,  by  J.  A.  Seiss. 
IV.  1-34. — Walther,  F.,  trans.,  The  Delegation  of  the  Missouri  Synod  in  Ger- 
many,   1S51-1S52.    IV.    63-83,    514-578. 

1853. 
Schock,   J.    L.,    Symbolism    Not    Opposed    to    Evangelical    Religion.      IV.    293- 

309. Thomasius,   The   Christology   of   the   Church.      IV.    83,    385,    508;    V.    35, 

214. The  Church  and  Her  Ministry.    IV.   413-431. Loy,  M.,   The  Lutheran 

Cultus.  IV.  524-544. Krauth,  C.  P.,  The  Church  As  Set  Forth  in  the  Con- 
fessions  of   Christendom;    trans.    Guericke    Symbolik.      V.    17-34. Krauth,    C. 

P.,   The   Services  of   the   Reformation   Church.     V.   151-189. Schaeffer,   C.   F., 

The   Confession   of   the   Ev.    Lutheran    Church.      V.    189-213. 

1854. 

Henkel,  Book  of  Concord,   Revised. 

1855. 

"Deflnlte  Platform,  Doctrinal  and  DlKciplinarian."  (Offered  "as  a  more 
specific  expression  of  the  General  Synod's  doctrinal  basis,  being  surrounded 
by  German  churches  which  possess  the  entire  mass  of  former  Symbols."  It 
charges  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  five  errors,  two  of  which  are,  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration,  and  the  Real  Presence.) Reynolds,  W.   M.,  The  Lutheran 

Church    in    the    New    Netherlands.    Ev.    Rev.      VI.    303-329. Klicfoth,    Divine 

"Worship    As    Originally    Held    in    the    Churches    of    the    Lutheran    Confession, 

trans,    by    B.    M.    Schmucker.      VI.    576-594. Loy,    M.,    The    Nature    of    the 

Church.     VII.    215-234. 

1856. 

Hoffmann,  J.  N.,  The  Broken  Platform. Passavant,  W.  A.,  The  Mission- 
ary,   with    extracts   from   Luther's   Works,    trans,    by    C.    P.    K.,    of   Pittsburg. 

Schmucker,  S.  S.,  The  Lutheran  Symbols,  or  Vindication  of  American 
Luthcianism. 


CONTENTS  Ixxi 

1856. 
The  Lutheran. 

Loy,  M.,   The  Unity  of  the  Church.      Ev.   Rev.     Vlll.    1-33. 

1857. 

Mann,  W.  .!.,  I^uthoranism  in  America;  an  Essay  on  the  Present  Condi- 
tion of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  a  very  discriminative 
Introduction   on   the  Lutheran   Cliurch   in   that  day.     Philadelphia,    152. 

Schaeffer,  C.  F.,  Baptismal  Regeneration.  Ev.  Rev.  VIII.  303-3.".!. Rey- 
nolds, On  Dr.  Schmucker's  Lutheran  Symbols.     VIII.   452-485.— — Brown,  J.   A., 

The   New  Theolojry    (that   of   S.    S.    Schmuckcr).     .IX.    91-10». Kraiith,   C.    P. 

History  of  Theological  Encyclopedia,  .in  the  Lutheran  Church.  IX.  278-292. 

Krauth,    C.    P.,    German    Theology    from    January    to    June.      IX.    292-297. 

1858. 
IJrobst,    Die    Lutherische    Zeitschrift. 

Schaeffer,  C.  F.,   The  Three  Saxon  Electors  of  the  Era  of  the  Reformation. 

Ev.    Rev.    IX.    451-486;    X.    36-74,     461-506. Translation     of    Srhniid's    I)og- 

matik    of    the    Lutheran    Church.    IX.    496-510;    X.    214-231,    578-5S6;    ]S.".9.    XI. 

194-202;    1864.    XV.    564-570;    1868.    XIX.    Uft.    259ff.:    1870.    XXI.     299-321. 

Krauth,  C.  P.,  Select  Analytic  Bibliography  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  X. 
16-30. — — Lasar,  H.  S.,  Liturgical  Studies  Translated  from  Hoofling.  X.  105- 
124.    232-296. 

1859. 

The  Present  Position  of  the   Lutheran   Church.   XI.    1-43. Justifleation  by 

Faith  Alone.  ("The  foregoing  article  came  to  us  without  a  name  .  .  our 
readers  will  take  it  for  what  it  is  worth  .  .  the  standpoint  of  the  writer 
Is  strictly  symbolical,  but  that  does  not  preclude  him  from  a  hearing  in  our 
pages.    Editors.")    XI.    225-254. 

1800. 

Krauth,   C.   P.,   In   Luth.   and   Miss.   Liturgies.   Oct.    19th. Christian  I,iherfy 

in  Relation  to  the  I'sages  of  the  Kvangelieal  Lutheran  Chun'li  Maintained  and 
defended.  Two  Sermons  at  St.  Mark's  Church,  I'hiladelphia.  Mar.  25.  Phila- 
delphia, H.  B.  Ashmead.     8vo.   72. Melanehthon  on  the  Divine  Nature,  trans. 

from   the  Loci.   Ev.   Rev.   XII.   1-46. A  Commendation  and  Critique  of  C.   P. 

Krautli's   Sermons  on  Christian   Liberty.      XII.    161-173. Krautli,   C.    P.,   The 

Evangelical  Mass  and  the  Romish  Mass,  a  contribution  to  tlie  Defence  of  the 
Augsburg   Confession,    and    the    History    of   the    Reformation.    XII.    263-319. 

1861. 
Krautb,    C.    P.,    In    Lutheran    and    Missionary.       The    Ministry    and    Church 

Polity.    March    1st    and    15th,    June    7th. Hay,    C.    A.,    Ev.    Rev.     XII.    401- 

429. Reynolds,  W.   M.,   The  Ministerium  Question.  XII.  463-488. Reynolds, 

W.    M.,    German    Emigration    to    North    America.     XIII.    1-27. Harnaek,    T., 

H.,  trans,  by  F.  A.  Muhlenberg.  Theses  Upon  the  Church  with  Particular 
Reference  to  the  Determination  of  Them,  by  our  Symbolical  Books.  XIII. 
122-134;    267-292. Loy,   M.,    The    Ministerial   Office.      XIII.    199-248. 

1862. 
Krauth,  C.   P.,   In  Luth.  and  Mi.ss.  Liturgies,  May  29th,  June   5th,  June  26th, 
Aug.   14th,  Sept.   4th  and  25th,  Dec.   4th  and  11th. 

1863. 

Krauth,    C.    P.,    The    Evangelical    Lutheran    Church;    Her    Difficulty,    Perils, 

Defense,      Victory      and      Perpetuity.        Philadelphia.      15. Krautb,      C.      P., 

In    Luth.    and    Miss.,    The    Ministry    and    Church    Polity.      July    16th,    23d    and 

30th,    Aug.    20th,    Sept.    3d. Schaeffer,    C.    F.,    M.    Flacius    Illyricus    and    His 

Times.    Ev.   Rev.   XIV.    4S1-522. Sternberg,   L.,   The   Lord's  Supper.    (Against 

the  Lutheran  Doctrine.)    XIV.    558-578. 


Ixxii  CONTENTS 

1864. 

Bartorlns,   trans,    by    G.    A.   Wenzel,    The    Lord's   Supper.    XV.    71ff.    Sllff. 

Conrad,  F.  W.,  The  Confessors  and  the  Confession  of  Augsburg.     XV.   246-273. 

1865. 

Brown,  J.   A.,  The  Beformation  the  Work  of  God.   XVI.   1-11. — Loy,   M.,   The 

Lutheran    Doctrine    of    Ordination.    XVI.     303-328.— Schmucker,    B.    M.,    and 

Krautb,  C.  P.,  Installation  Addresses  at  the  Philadelphia  Seminary.  XVI. 
426-448. 

1866. 

Kranth,   C.    P..    Call    for   the   Convention   which    formed    the   General   Council, 

August    10th. Krauth,    C.    P..    The    Fundamental    Principles    of    Faith    and 

Church   Polity   of   the    General    Council,    December    12-14. Krauth,   C.    P.,    In 

Luth.    and    Miss..    Liturgies,    Jan.     2.5th,    Feb.     22d,    Mar.     Sth,    Oct.     11th,    Nov. 

15th  and  22d.— — Seiss.  J.  A.,  Ecclesia  Lutherana.     Ev.  Rev.  XVII.  157-193. 

Krauth,  C.  P.,  Baptism.  XVII.   309-372. Scbaeffer,  C.  W.,  The  Lord's  Supper. 

XVII.  369-3S1. Plitt,   translated   by  J.    D.    Sevringhaus,    The   Scriptural   Idea 

of   the   Ministry.     XVII.    381-390. 

1867. 
Krautb,    C.    P.,    In    Luth.    and    Miss.    Liturgies,    Jan.    10th,    Feb.    14th,    Mar. 

28th,   Apr.    25th,   May   2d,   Dec.   19th. Loehman-Hay-Valentlne,   Inauguration 

Addresses.  Ev.  Rev.  XVIII.  1-25. Krauth,  C.  P.,  Shedd's  History  of  Chris- 
tian   Doctrine.    XVIII.     66-82. Brown,    J.    A.,    The    General    Synod    and    Its 

Assailants.    XVIII.     120-147. Theses    of    the    Missouri     Synod.     XVIII.     157- 

161. StucUenberg,    J.     H.,     The    Authorship     of     the     Augsburg     Confession. 

XVIII.  279-290. Conrad,    F.    W.,    Confessions   of   Faith.    XVIII.    351-380. 

Krauth,  C.  P.,  The  Person  of  Our  Lord  and  I  is  Sacramental  Presence.  XVIII. 

S95-436. Cheinnitz,    M.,    Conversion.      Translated    by    H.    E.    Jacobs.    XVIII. 

636-544.^ — Sprecber,  S.,  Aiticle  Second  of  th :!  Augsburg  Confession.  XVIII. 
567-595. 

1868. 
Krautb,    C.     P.,     The    Augsburg    Confession,     translated     with     Introduction, 

Notes    and    Index.      Philadelphia.    91. Krautb,    C.    P.,    In    Luth.    and    Miss., 

Lutheranism  and  Calvinism.  Feb.  (4th  Art.). Valentine,  M.,  The  Refor- 
mation. Ev.  Rev.  XIJ;.  154-166. Schniurker,  S.  S.,  The  Church  of  the  Re- 
deemer as  developed  within  the  General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  In 
America,  with  an  Historic  Outline  from  the  Apostolic  Age.  To  which  is  ap- 
pended   a    Plan     for     restoring     union     between     all     orthodox    denominations. 

Noticed.      XIX.    167. Dorpat    Tbeolotfical   Faculty,    Opinion    of,    Confessional 

et  extra-Confessional.      Trans,    by   Koons,   E.   J.      XIX.    232-258. 

1869. 
Krautb,   C.    P.,    Fifty-six   The.ses   on    the   Ministerial    Office,    prepared  for   the 

Mlnlsterium  of  Pennsylvania.- -Krautb,  C.   P.,   In  Luth.   and  Miss.,  Liturgical 

Controversy   in   the   German   Reformed   Church.     Aug.    (3d  Art.) Krautb,   C. 

P.,    The   Reformation,    Its   Occasions   and   Cause.    Ev.    Rev.    XX.    94-112. Tho 

Lutheran   Church   in   the   United   States   of   America.   XX.    113-125.— — Beck,   J. 

T.,    The   Christian   Church,    Trans,   by   E.   J.   Wolf.      XX.    418-440. Valentine, 

M.,  Justification  by  Faith.  XX.  481-524. — ^Stuckenberg,  J.  H.,  The  Special 
Jlission   of   The    Lutheran    Publication   Society.    XX.    462-474. 

1870. 
Krauth,   C.    P.,   The   New   Testament   Doctrine   of   the   Lord's   Supper   as   Con- 
fessed   by    the    Lutheran     Church.     Mercersburg    Review.     XVII.     165.     72. • 

Krauth,    C.    P.,    Theses    on    Justification,    for    the    General    Council.     1S70. 

Harkey,    S.    L.,    The    Question    of    Close    Communion    in    the    Lutheran    Church 

Ev.    Rev.    XXL    111-127. Jacobs,    H.    E.    Martin    Chemnitz    and    the    Council 

Of  Trent.   XXI.   398-415. 


CONTENTS  Ixxiii 

1871. 
Kraatb,  C.   P.,  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  Its  Theology.   Phila. 

1875. 
Krautb,  In  Luth.  and  Miss.,  Pulpit  and  Altar  Fellowship.   Dec.    (14  Art.) 

1876. 
Krautb,  In  Lulh.  and  Mi.'is.,  Pulpit   and  Altar  Fellow.ship.  June.    (11  Art.) 

1877. 
Krautb,    C.    P.,    Theses   on    I'ulpit    and    Altar   Fellowship,    prepared   by    order 

of    the    General    Council.     32. Krautb,     C.     P.,     Religion    and     Religionisms. 

Sermon  before  the  General  Council. Prooeedings  of  First  T.utberan  Diet  In 

America.     Philadelphia.    34G. 

1878. 
Krautb,    C.     P.,     A     Chronicle     of    the     Augsburg     Confession.     Philadelphia. 
92. — — FroceedingB   of   .Second   l.utlieran   l>iet   in  America.   Philadelphia.    282. 

1882. 
Tbe  Lutberan  Churcb  Review.  I-XXIX.  1882-1910. 

Scbmuclter,  The  First  Pennsylvania  I.,iturgy.     I.   16-27,   161-172. Schranck- 

er,   Karly    Hi.story    ol'    tho    Tulpehocken    Churches.     1.    292-au2. 

1883. 

Scbmuclter,   The    Rite   of  Confirmation.      II.    89-103,    230-253. Sebaeffer,   C. 

W.,    In    Memoriam:    Charles   Porlerfieid    Krauth.      II.    143-lo3. 

1884. 

Seiss-Jacobs,    Inaugural    Addresses.      III.    1-lC. Martin,    A.,    The    Missouri 

Doctrine   of   Election.      III.    55-67. Krautb,   The   Controversy   on   Predestina- 
tion.     III.    6S-71. Sclimuclier,    The    Lutheran    Church    in    the    City    of    New 

York.      III.    204-222,   27S-295;    IV.    127-101,    187-209. 

1885. 

Ocbseuford,    The    I.ulheran    Church    in    America.      IV.    12-28. Jacobs,    The 

Strasburg    Formula    of    l.';63.      IV.    49-54. .Spaetb,    The    General    Council    of 

the  Kvangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  North   America.    IV.   Sl-12ti. 

1886. 

Norelius,   The   Swedi.sh    Lutheran   Church   in   America.      V.    24-44. Ocbsen- 

ford,   Luther   on    tlie    Church    Service.      V.    59-G3. Ocbsenford,    Causes   Lead- 
ing to  the  Organization  of  the  General  Council.   V.   217-243. Scbaeffer,  C.  W., 

The   Wittenberg    Concord.      V.    249-264. Kunze,    J.    C,    Appendix    to    "Hymn 

and    Prayer-Book"    in    tlie    Lutheran    Church.    V.    292-301.       IRepiint. ] 

1887. 

Nicum,   The   Doctrinal  Development  of  the   New  York  Ministerlum.      VI.   68- 

77,     140-152. Mann,     Lutherans     in     America     before     Muhlenberg.     VI.     93- 

114. The  Philadelphia  Evangelical  Movement.  VI.  78-82. Scbmuclier,  The 

Organization  of  the  Congregation  in  the  Early  Lutheran  Churches  of  America. 

VI.    188-226. Jacobs    Henry    Melchlor   Muhlenberg.      VI.    244-250. Spaeth, 

Luther's  Doctrine  of  the   Church.     VI.    272-286. Schmuclser,    English   Trans- 
lations  of   the  Augsburg  Confession.      VI.    5-38. 

Holman   Foundation,   Lectures   on    the    Augsburg   Confession,    In    Gettysburg. 
18fi6-18S6.      Philadelphia,   1888. 

1888. 

Rpaetli,  The  German  Lutheran  Conference  in  Germany.     VII.  5-17. ^Mann, 

The     Conservatism     of    Henry     Melchior     Muhlenberg.       VII.     18-46. Krotel, 

U'ashington   Conference.      VII.    79-95. Mann,   Von    Scheele's   SymboUk.      VII. 

96-107. Scbaeflfer,   Luther's   Doctrine    in    Its   First    Stage.      VII.    108-118. 

Ocbsenford,   Lutheran   History.     VII.   119-13C. Scbaeffer,   C.   F.,   The  Present 

Transition    Stage   of   the   Lutheran    Church    in    America    [1853].    VII.    185-210. 


Ixxiv  CONTENTS 

1889. 
Jacobs,  Modern  Calvinism.     A  Review  of  Shedd's  Dogmatic  Theology.  VIH. 

73-104. Spaeth,   Memorial   of  B.    M.    Schmucker.      VIII.    105-127. Jacobs, 

German  Theology  of  the   Nineteenth   Century.     VIII.    173-189. Jacobs,   The 

Theology    of   the    General   Synod.      VIII.    210-225. Jacobs,    Some    Considera- 
tions  Involved   in   the   Fellowship  Question.      VIII.    243-279. 

1890. 
Early,    Constitution    of    the    Mlnisterlum    of    North    America    [17S1].      IX. 
254-269. 

1891. 
Horn,  E.   T.,   Luther  on   the   Principles  and   Order  of  Christian  Worship.     X. 

217-256. Seiss-Fi-y-HUprecht,  Charge  and  Inaugural  Addresses.     X.  257-287. 

1892. 
Early,   The   Ministerium   of  Pennsylvania  and   the   Organization   of  the   Gen- 
eral  Synod.      XI.    61-70.    172-186. Plitt,   G.    L,.,    The   Distinctive   Doctrines   of 

the     Lutheran     Church.       XI.     146-171. Jacobs,     Archbishop     Hermann     of 

Cologne  and  His   '•Consultation."     XI.   301-344. 

1893. 
The   Lutheran   World. 

Horn,   The  Threefold  Interim.   Luth.   Ch.    Rev.   XII.    75-119. Nioum,   Prof. 

Graebner's    History.    XII.    17S-1SS,    25G-276. Scliaeffer,    C.    W.,    Muhlenberg's 

Defense  of  Pietism.   XII.   349-375. 

1894. 
Scbaeffer,    C.    W.,    The    Lutheran    Church    in    the    United    States.    XIII.    81- 

88.. Spieker,  G.  F.,  The  Influence  of  Rationalism  in  the  Lutheran  Church  In 

Ameiica.      XIII.    220-233. 

1895. 

Frick,  I^utlieranisni  in  the  Great  Northwest.     XIV.   126-147. Morris,  J.  G., 

Sources  of  Information  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America.     XIV.   165-186. 

1896. 

Jacobs,  The  Mission  of  the  Lutheran  Confession  in  America.  XV.  127-133. 

Haas,    G.    C.    F.,    Why    We    Lutherans    Cannot    Unite    With    Other    Bodies    in 

American    Christianity.      XV.    161-168. Fritschel,    The   Lutheran    Doctrine   of 

th«  Word.     XV.   182-185. Geissinger,  The   Lutheran   Teaching  of  the   Person 

of  Christ.     XV.   192-194. Jacobs,  C.  W.   Schaeffer.      XV.    369-3S1. Remen- 

snyder,  The  Early  History  of  the  Lutherans  in  New  York  City.     XV.  382-386. 

1897. 
Krotel,  The  Beginnings  of  the  Philadelphia  Lutheran   Theological  Seminary. 

XVI,   Iff.,    36Sff.,   65Sft. Sachse,  J.   F.,   The   Genesis  of   the   Lutheran   Church 

in    Pennsylvania.    XVI.     60,     283.     435,     521;     1899.     XVIII.     118-121. Jacobs, 

Melanchthon     as    a    Theologian     and     Reformer.       XVI.     93-96. Horn,     The 

Strength    and    Weakne.ss    of    Melanchthon.      XVI.    99-100. Spicker,    The    In- 
fluence of  Melanchthon  on  the  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church.   XVI.   100. • 

Spaeth,   Melanchthon  in  American   Lutheran   Theology.   XVI.    104-106. 

1898. 

Haas,   J.    A.    W.,    On    the    Genesis   of    the    Augsburg    Confession    (A    reply    to 

theories   advocated    by   J.    W.    Richard).      XVIL    15-29. One   Hundredth  An- 

nlTersary    of    the    Ministerium    of    Pennsylvania    (for    the    various    articles    v. 

supra). Krotel,    Beginning    of    the    Seminary.      XVII.    294-311,    441-453. 

Jacobs,  The  Confessional   History   of  the  Ministerium   of   Pennsylvania.     XVII. 
358-369. Schuiauk,    Life    of   Philip    Schaff.      XVII.      696-704. 

1899. 
Fritschel,   G.    J.,    Luther   and    Zwingli.      XVIII.    194-206,    658-670;    1900.    XIX. 

63-73. The    General    Conference    in    Philadelphia.      Various    articles.    XVIII. 

255-334. Early,   Kurtz's  Account   of  the   Ministerium  in   1749.     XVIII.    675- 

677. 


CONTENTS  l^'^v 


1900. 
Selss,  The  Story  of  the  "Definite  Platform."     XIX.   623-632. 

1901. 

Spa«tb,    C.    S.    Fritschel.      XX.    1-29. Saclise,    Pennsylvania    a    Lutheran 

Colony.     XX.    277-292. 

1903. 
Scbmauk,   The   Right   of  Freedom   of   Inquiry   and   Discussion   in   the   Luth- 
eran   Church.      XXII.    51-63. Nicum,    The    General    Lutheran    Conference    at 

Waterlown.      Against   an    Indictment   of   the    General    Council.      XXII.    353-364, 
574. 

1904. 
Fritschel,   G.   J.,   What   Is   Necessary   for  Union   Among   Lutherans.     XXIII. 

S7-81. Nlcum,  The  General  Conference  in   Milwaukee.     XXIII.   121-135,   280- 

306. Stump,  J.,  Why  Missouri   Refuses  Fellowship  with  Iowa.     XXIII.   345- 

356. Brwkenritlge,   S.   F.,   The   Conservative   Theology.      XXIII.    525-537. 

btellhorn,    F.    W..    What    Separates   Ohio    and    Missouri.      XXIII.      550-567. 

Ueindoerfer,  Why   Missouri   Refuses  Fellowship   with    Iowa.  XXIII.  568-572. 

Nicuin,   The  Convention   of  German   Lutherans  at   Detroit.   XXIII.    573-590. 

NIcuui,     The     Third     General     Conference     of    Lutherans.     Held     in     Pittsburg, 

Pa.      XXIII.    597-025. Fritschel,   The    Inter.synodical    Conferences    and    Their 

Object.      XXIII.    693-717. Keyser,   L.    S.,   Christian   Fellowship   and   Unity   of 

Doctrine.      XXIIL      777-787. Sclimauk,    Shall    the    General    Council    Change 

Its    Confessional    Basis?    XXIII.    796-79S. Schmuuk,    The    Greater    Unity    of 

Lutherans   In   America.      XXIII.    362-384. 

190.5. 
Spaeth,    International    Lutheranism.      XXIV.    1-15. Oehlkers,    The    Luth- 
eran   Confessions    in    Practical    Life,    Translated    by    C.    T.    Benze.      XXIV.    344- 

352. Spaeth,    Concordia,    Translated    by    C.    T.    Benze.      XXIV.    631-643. 

Nicum,  Intersynodical  Conference  in  Fort  Wayne.  XXIV.  726-731. Schiuauk, 

The   Confessional    .Soundness   of   Early    Lutheranism   in    America.      XXIV.    248- 

262.- Scbmauk,    Th      International    Lutheran    Conference.  XXIV.  593-603. 

Scbmauk,    The    Doctrinal    and    Churchly    Development    of    the    General    Coun- 
cil.     XXIV.    749-754. 

190C. 
Stellborn,  The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Article  XI.   of  the  Formula  of  Concord 

Translated   by   Benze.      XXV.    237-248. Scbmauk,    The    General    Council    and 

the  Federation  of  Protestant  Churches.     XXV.    167-207. 

1907. 
Nicum,    The   Significance   of    the   Inter-Synodical    Conferences,    Including    the 

Fifth,    at    Fort    Wayne.      XXVI.    109-123. Stellborn,    Missouri    and    Ohio    in 

Their  Last  Conflict  at  Fort  Wayne.     XXVI.   124-129. .Scbmauk,  The  Charity 

of   a   General    Synod   View   of   the    General    Council.      XXVI.    ISO-l.^O. Bren- 
ner,   W.,     Pulpit     and    Altar    Fellowship.       XXVI.     784-788. Scbmauk,     The 

Bearings  of  Dr.   Loy's  Life  on  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  Land.     XXVI.   190. 

1908. 

Scbmauk,  Christ  All  and  in  All  in  Our  Church.      XVII.   1-32. Jacobs,  The 

First    Synod.    XXVII.    108-114,    236-244. -Matbias,    H.    J.,    Close    Communion. 

XXVII.  271-281. Scbmauk,  The  General  Council  after  Forty  Years.   XXVII. 

176-185. 

1909. 
Oifermann,    H.,    The    Lutheran    Doctrine    of   Justification    by    Faith.    XXVIII. 
369-374,    565-578. Scbub,    H.    J.,    The    Lutheran    Pastor   and    Civic    Problems. 

XXVIII.  619-G3(;. Scbmauk,     The     Federation     of    Churches.     XXVIII.     131- 

146. Scbmauk,  The  Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran   Church  by  J.  W. 

Richard.     XXVIII.   4S8-49S. 


Ixxvi  CONTENTS 

1910. 

Scbmauk,  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth.     XXIX.  420-456. Diehl,  T.  H.,  Reminiscence* 

of    Rev.    S.    K.   Brobst    and   His   Times.      XXIX.    326-342,    478-499,    835-854. 

Jacobs,    C.    M.,    The   Augsburg   Confession.    XXIX,    695-709.     Continued   In   the 

first   two  Issues  of  Vol.   XXX. Schmaok,   The   Death   of  Dr.    Spaeth.   XXIX. 

6D3-658. 

III.     OTHER  PERIODICALS 

1871. 
The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

1878. 
Fritsehel,    Kirchliche    Zeitschrift.    1878-1910. 

1881. 
Loy-Schodde,    Columbus    Theological    Magazine.    1881-1910. 

188.S. 
Stellbom,    TheologLsche    Zeitblatter.    1883-1910. 

1901. 
Forsander,  Augustana  Tidskrift.   1901-1911. 

p.   859 

Chapter  XXXIX. 

THE    CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE    OF   THE   BOOK    OF 
CONCORD  AND  AMERICAN  PROTESTANTISM. 

the  sources  of  spiritual  Authority — Scripture,  Rea.soii,  Church. 

the  relation  of  Spiritual  Forces 

the  Confessional  principle  a  Balance 

the  Confessional  principle  and  Liberality 

is  the  Confessional  principle  accepted  in  all  parts  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church 

is  the  confessional  principle  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg-  Con- 
fession that  of  the  Book  of  Concord 

what  an  ex  animo  confession  of  tlie  TTnaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession Involves 

V.    Literature    under   Chapter   V.,    I.  .  .  .  .  P-    874 

Chapter  XL. 

THE    CONFESSIONAL   PRINCIPLE    OF   THE    BOOK    OF 
CONCORD  AND  CHRISTIAN  CO-OPERATION. 

co-operation  in  the  view  of  the  Lutheran  Reformers 

co-operation  today 

the  Sphere  of  the  Church  in  Civil  Refonn 

the  Dangers  in  co-operation 

the  True  Confessional  principle  in  co-operation 

The  confessional   principle  and  Those  Outside  the  Lutheran 

Church 
the  confes-sional  principle  and  Christian  Fellowship 
the  confessional  principle  of  Ctmcordia  and  Christian  T'nion 


C  O  X  T  E  X  T  S  Ixxvii 

Dleckhoflf,    Luthers    Lehre    v.    d.    kirchl.    Gewalt.    Berlin,    1S65. v.   Zeisch- 

witz,   t)ber   die   wesentlichen   Verfassungsziele    der    luth.    Reformation.    Leipzig, 

1867. Kietschel,    Luthers    Anschauung    von    der    Unsichtbarlieit    und    Siclit- 

bariteit  der  Kiiche.  TliStKr.  73,  404  ff. Jacobs,  Some  Considerations  In- 
volved   In    the    Fellowship    Question.    Luth.    Ch.    Rev.    VIII.    243. Schmauk, 

The    General    Council    and    the    Federation    of   Protestant    Churches.    Luth.    Ch. 

Rev.  XXV.   167. lb..  The  Federation  of  Churches.     Luth.   Ch.   Rev.  XXVIII. 

131. 

p.   891 

CiiArxER  XLL 

THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK  OF 
CONCORD  AND  THE  BROTHERHOOD  OF  THE 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

Conscience.  Principle  and  Charity  in  the  Church 
tolerance  in  the  Church 

the  question  of  the  Majority  in  Protestantism 
the  question  of  a  Visible  Unity  in  Protestanti.sm 
confessional  attitude  of  Lutherans  revealed  by  Attitude  toward 
Denominational  Protestantism 

Tuither,     Eight     Sermons     (on     Church     Toleration.     Preached     at     Witten- 
berg,  1523)    Erl.   XXVIII,   202  sqq. COlle,  Die  genuine  Lehre  von  der  Kirch© 

nacli   den   Symbolcn   der  ev.-luth.    Confession.    Leipzig,    1894. 

Stahl,  Die  Kirchenverfassung  nach  Lehre  und  Recht  der  Protestanten.   1840. 

Krauth,  C.   P.,   Religion   and   Religionisms,    Luth.    Ch.    Rev.   XXVI,   227. 

Krautb,  Theses  on  the  Galesburg  Declaration  on  Pulpit  and  Altar  Fellow- 
ship, Prepared  by  Order  of  the  General  Council,  Luth.  Ch.  Rev.  XXVI, 
740.  p.    910 

Chapter  XLII. 

THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK  OF 
CONCORD  AND  THE  FUTURE  OF  THE  CHURCH 
IN  AMERICA. 

the  Field  of  the  Confessional  Principle  in  America.  Its  sub- 
stance is  to  penetrate  and  control  every  department  of  life. 

the  three  separate  spheres  of  Faith,  Love  and  Law;  and  the 
three  separate  institutions  of  Church,  Home,  and  State,  not 
properly  distinguished  by  Radical  and  Reformed  Protest- 
antism 

the  Lutheran  solution  of  Religious  Problems  in  America 

some  Reformed  results 

some  Lutheran  results 

the  confessional  principle  no  hindrance  to  the  Future  Churcli 

it  will  Broaden  the  Church 

a  Recapitulation  of  the  Argument  of  this  Book 

the  Conclusion 


Ixxviii  CONTENTS 

Stahl,   Der   Protestantismus  als  politisches  Princip.    1S56. Hofstatter,   Die 

Augsbuigische  Konfession  In  ihrer  Bedeutung  fur  das  kirchliche  Leben  der 
Gegenwart.  Leipzig,  1897. 

Ritsohl,  A.,  tjber  die  beiden  Prinziplen  des  Protestantismus.   ZKG.   1   (1876), 

397    ff.    und    Gesammelte    Aufsatze,    1893,    234    fE. Lenz,    Luthers    Lehre    von 

der   Obrigkeit.    Pr.    Jahrb.    75    (1894),    Marzheft. Thomas,    Die    Anschauung 

der    Reformation    vom     geistlichen    Amte.     Lpz.     Diss.     1901. ^Brandenburg, 

Luthers   Anschauung   vom    Staate   und   von    der    Gesellschaft.    Halle,    1901. 

Drews,    Die    Ordination,     Priifung    und    Lehrverpflichtung    der    Ordinanden    In 

Wittenberg,    1535.      Giessen,   1904. Drews,   Entsprach   das   Staatsklrchentum 

dcm    Ideale    Luthers?     ZThK.    18.      Jahrg.     Tubingen,     1908.      Erganzungsheft. 

^Loebe,  Three  Books  Concerning  the  Church.   Tr.  by  Horn,  Heading,  1908. 

p.   923 


Historical  fntrotiuction 

Witf)  ^ome  B-eference  to  ^ebcral  3Recent  Wovki 

l^^i^HE  Augsburg  Conftession  is  the  Answer,  at  the 
ilL  dawn  of  modern  history,  of  the  Church's  Faith  to 
^*^  the  world's  Might.  In  form  it  is  a  secular  instru- 
ment written  by  laymen,  in  consultation  with  the  clergy, 
and  offered  by  Princes,  to  the  highest  court  of  the  realm. 
In  essence  it  is  the  carrier  and  conservator  of  the  convic- 
tions and  conscience,  under  the  direct  touch  of  God's  Word, 
of  the  unwillingly  Protestant  Church  as  to  the  True  Faith 
and  the  True  Ecclesiastical  Practice  of  Christianity. 

In  response  to  the  demand  of  the  sovereign  of  Germany, 
the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Italy,  Spain,  and  the  new  world 
of  America,  at  the  moment  when  this  sovereign,'  in  league 
with  and  under  the  direction  of  the  head  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  was  attempting  to  crush  liberty  of  conscience  and  of 
worship,  the  Augsburg  Confession  became,  by  reason  of 
its  presentation  in  a  due  and  legal  manner  at  a  specially 
called  Diet  of  the  Empire,  the  great  historic  appeal,  decla- 
ration, and  confession  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  on  be- 
half of  conscience,  truth,  and  religious  liberty. 

This  answer,  though  occasional  in  origin,  became  a  fixed 
point  in  history  and  permanently  definitive  of  principle.  It 
belongs  to  the  family  of  charter-documents  which,  when 
they  once  receive  the  stamp  of  authority,  as  representing 


1  Thp  Augsburg  Confession  begins  as  follows:  '"Most  Invincible  Emperor, 
Caesar  Augustus,  most  Cloment  Lord  :  Inasmuch  as  Your  Imperial  Majesty 
has  summoned  a  Diet  of  the  Empire  here  at  Augsburg.  .  .  .  And  inasmuch 
as  we,  the  undersigned  Electors  and  Princes,  with  others  .ioined  with  us, 
have  been  called  to  the  aforesaid  Diet,  the  same  as  the  other  I'^lectors,  Princes 
and  Estates,  in  obedient  compliance  with  the  Imperial  mandate  we  have  come 
to  Augsburg."    .    .    . 

Weber  had  the  original  Call  of  Charles  V..  written  at  Bologna,  Jan.  2t5th, 
1530,  in  his  hands,  when  writing  his  book  in  1783. 

l.xxi.x 


Ixxx  INTRODUCTION 

the  activities  of  a  movement,  definitely  define,  and  form 
the  basis  of  the  principles  of  that  movement.  It  pertains 
to  the  essence  of  their  validity  that  they  are  unalterable, 
except  at  rare  intervals  and  upon  occasions  at  least  as  rep- 
resentative and  formal  as  those  which  gave  birth  to  the  in- 
strument. In  becoming  an  unalterable  basal  instrument, 
their  character  is  not  always  immediately  perceived  by 
those  who  originated  them.  This  was  the  case  with  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  and  it  has  been  so  with  many  other 
historical  documents.  So  long  as  the  Living  Witness  to 
the  principles  is  present,  so  long  the  written  testimony  may 
appear  to  be  secondary,  and  its  all-time  value  may  not  be 
discernible.  But  after  the  Living  Voice  has  disappeared, 
and  new  generations  arise,  it  becomes  the  one  authorita- 
tive and  unalterable  basis  of  future  interpretation.  This 
is  a  fundamental  fact,  and  it  is  particularly  important  in 
the  case  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  view  of  many 
statements  to  the  contrary  by  a  recent  writer  on  the  con- 
fessional history  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  e.  g. : 

"Melauchthon  changed  tlip  Augsburg  Confession.  Luther  approved  the 
changes." — The  Confessional  Ilistory  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  p.  olMi. 

"This  formula  .  .  .  was  not  meant  to  make  the  impression  on  the 
subscriber  that  he  must  regard  the  Confession  as  an  unchangeable  norm 
of  doctrine." — lb.  p.  284. 

"Even  the  Princes  who  had  subscribed  the  Augsburg  Confession  .  .  . 
gave  their  theologians  instruction  to  examine  the  Confession  again  in  the 
light  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  change  it.  .  .  .  The  occasional  obligation 
of  men  to  the  Confession  and  to  the  Apology  arose  from  diverse  considera- 
tions and  from  accident — not  from  a  deliberate  and  united  purpose  to  bind 
men  to  those  documents  ^s  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  faith." — lb.  p.  289. 

"In  all  these  Church  Orders,  which  appeared  before  the  Religious 
Peace  (of  Augsburg,  ].!.">),  there  is  nowhero  an  unconditioned  binding 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  or  to  any  other  symbolical  book,  but  only  the 
requirement  that  the  preachers  shall  preach  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ 
according  to  its  pure  intent,  and  free  from  human  opinions." — lb.  p.  287. 

"They  hold  that  it  is  defeeth-c." — lb.  p.  97. 

"There  is  misrepresentation  [in  the  Confession]  if  we  take  into  con- 
sideration the  compass  of  the  teaching." — lb.  p.  98. 

"We  cannot  hold  that  the  statement  made  at  the  close  of  Article  XXI, 


I N  T  R  0  D  F  C  T  I  O  X  Ixxxi 

riz.,   lliat  Iho  duclriiiMl  nilidcs  oonstitulo  about   the  sum   of   llie  doctrine 
taught    ...    is  correct."' — Ih.  p.  98. 

"Molauclitlion  did  not  ri'gard  tiic  Confession  as  the  Protestant  ulti- 
matum"   (p.  ]0'.)). 

Taken  in  connection  with  the  following  on  Lullier: 

"The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  he  did  not  regard  il  as  a  law  for  the 
conscience,  and  that  he  did  not  think  that  il  had  spok<'n  the  last  word  on 
any  article  of  Ihe  Christian  faith,  and  that  he  did  not  think  of  binding 
himself  to  the  letier  or  to  the  form  of  the  Confession.  Otherwise  he  would 
not  have  accepted  Melanchthon's  printed  editions  of  the  Confession — all 
of  Iheui  variuluc — and  would  not  have  counselled  the  revision  of  1540  and 
V  ( uld  not  have  approved  it  and  called  it  'the  dear  Confession.' " — 
Ih.  p.  207.= 

"There  is  no  such  document  in  u.se.  nor  even  known  to  exist,  as  the 
original  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession." — Ih.  p.  210. 

"Any  .  .  .  application  of  them  [the  words  'original'  and  'unaltered'] 
to  any  i)riiitc(l  vdition  of  the  Confession,  is  a  fuhifuution  of  furt  and  of 
histonj.  since  every  known  printed  edition  of  tlw  Augsburg  Confession  is 
known  to  be.  and  can  be  shown  to  be.  matkrially  different  frnm  I  lie  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  it  was  officially  r<>ail  and  delivered,  June  2.'3.  li)30."' 
[The  italics,  etc.,  are  those  of  the  author  of  "The  Confessional  History  of 
the  Lutheran  Chureh."] — lb.  p.  210. 

"There  is  no  such  document  in  occlesiaslical  use  today,  and  never  has 
been  as  'that  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,'  .  .  .  hence  it  is 
not  only  invidious,  but  it  is  untrue,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  any  ecclesi- 
astical body  says :  'We  accept  the  Unaltered  Augsbni'g  Confession.'  " — 
Ih.  p.  211.' 

In  many  of  these  statements  there  is  a  truth.  They  may 
state  a  fact,  but  err  in  the  inference  w*hich  they  desire  the 
reader  to  draw  from  it.  Or  they  may  state  a  fact  without 
regard  to  the  real  significance  of  its  inner  bearing.  Or  they 
confuse  the  relations  of  letter  and  spirit,  form  and  sub- 
stance, external  legal  pledge  and  hearty  voluntary  attes- 
tation. 


=  But  comp.  Luther,  15.3."  in  bis  letter  of  warning  to  the  Franckfurters  : 
"Es  ist  nun  fiir  alio  AVelt  kommeu  die  herrIioh<>  Confession  und  Apologia,  so 
flir  Kays.  Ma.it.  zu  Augspurg  von  vielen  der  hbhesten  Stande  des  R.  Reichs 
frcy  bekant  und  erhalten,  darinn  auch  die  Papisten,  ob  sie  uns  wol  iibcr  alle 
massen  gefiihrliehe  Siinden.  dennoeh  keinen  Sohwermer-Articul  uns  konnen 
Schuldgeben.  Wir  haben  nicht  Mum  Mum  gesagt.  und  unter  den  Hutlein 
gespielet,  sondern  da  stehet  unser  helle,  diirr,  frey  Wort  ohn  alles  tunekein 
und  mausen." — Luther  in  Warnungs-Schrift  an  die  zu  Franekfurt  am  Mayn, 
ISS.*?.     Tom  VI.  Jen.  Germ.  p.  113.    Carpzov.  Isnfi.  p.  99. 

^Cp.  Statement  in  The  Lnfltrrmi.  March  12.  1908.  p.  419,  "The  specification 
of  the  word  'Unaltered'  or  'Invariata'  is  a  mere  quibble." 
1 


ixxxii  I  K  T  R  O  D  U  C  T  I  O  N 

The  believer  wLo  is  neither  a  literalist  on  the  one  hand,  nor  open  to 
constant  changes  in  the  supposed  interests  of  progress  on  the  other,  finds 
little  consideration  in  this  volume.  The  test  applied  to  confessions,  con- 
fessors, and  synodical  bodies,  is  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  the  Melanch- 
thonian  doctrine,  and  after  the  manner  of  Weber.  It  respects  the  precise 
external  obligation,  rather  than  the  living  spirit  and  fountain  of  faith 
■nithiu,  which  confesses  voluntarily  and  heartily,  and  not  under  compul- 
sion. The  charge  of  deficiency,  incompleteness,  and  misrepresentation, 
urged  against  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  whole  might  perhaps  not  be 
inapplicable,  in  such  aspect,  to  this  book  itself,  in  its  total  outcome. 

Confesisiionsi  ?Hnalterat)Ie 

"Each  symbol,"  says  Philip  Schaff/  "bears  the  dmpress 
of  its  age,  and  the  historical  situation  out  of  which  it 
arose."  In  truly  reflecting  that  situation,  it  cannot  always 
also  fully  explicate  the  absolute  and  unrelated  force  of  its 
principles.  It  is  true  absolutely  in  its  own  situation,  just 
as  its  principle  is  true  absolutely  in  every  other  situation 
to  which  it  is  legitimately  applied.  Every  true  Confession, 
like  every  genuine  book  of  Scripture,  rises  in  its  principle 
beyond  the  local  situation  in  which  it  took  its  first  origin, 
though  it  also  reflects  the  particular  horizon  of  its  own 
time  period.  It  responds  in  the  form  of  its  immediate  en- 
vironment to  the  inquirings  that  have  compelled  it  to  speak, 
and  its  response  is  a  true  note  struck,  no  less  on  the  relative 
scale  of  time,  than  on  the  timeless  scale  of  unchangeable 
value. 

Every  true  Confession  is  an  answer.  It  is  neither  a 
manifesto  nor  an  ordinance.  It  is  the  public  and  common 
answer  of  the  flock  of  Christ  to  the  inquiries  which  have 
been  put  to  it  and  pressed  upon  it  by  the  spirit  of  a  particu- 
lar age.  The  answer  is  the  truth  of  Scripture  living  in 
the  witness,  and  applied,  not  under  a  Divine  Inspiration, 
but  under  the  ordinary  laws  of  Providence  to  the  particu- 
lar questions  it  is  intended  to  meet.  The  framework  of  the 
answer  is  that  of  the  age  which  has  asked  the  question, 
and  of  the  history  in  which  the  witness  lives,  and  some  of 
it  will  pass  away;  but  the  truth  of  the  answer,  in  all  its 
clear-cut  sharpness,  and  without  one  iota  of  deviation  or 


<  Creeds  of  ChriHtendom,  p.  4. 


INTKODUCTION  Ixxxiii 

compromise,  will  abide  forever.  For  the  framework  in  the 
answer  is  under  the  ordinary  laws  of  Providence,  but  the 
truth  in  the  answer,  that  is  the  Confessional  Principle  it- 
self, is  none  other  than  the  inspired  word  of  God. 

To  claim  that  the  earthly  framework,  which  fits  it  in  as 
the  answer  of  an  earthly  query  put  by  a  passing  age  of 
history  to  the  Church,  is  inspired,  or  is  binding,  is  con- 
trary to  Scripture,  and  to  the  laws  of  Providence.  But  to 
claim  that  the  declaratory  doctrine,  or  truth,  or  teaching  of 
the  Confession,  which  is  a  hearty  and  well-established  re- 
flection in  the  confessor,  of  the  pure  truth  of  God's  Word, 
is  open  to  interpretation  or  to  individual  judgment,  or  to 
ambiguous  explanation,  or  is  only  substantially  correct,  or 
is  a  quatenus  rather  than  a  quia  declaration  of  the  confes- 
sor, is  to  render  the  Confession  valueless  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  exists.' 

The  sound  Confessional  Principle,  like  every  other  prin- 
ciple, is  a  golden  and  substantial  mean,  which  has  to  con- 
tend with  two  extravagant  extremes.  The  one  extreme  is 
the  evaluation  of  its  confessional  content  by  the  use  of  pri- 
vate judgment  and  mental  reservation.  The  other  extreme 
is  the  externalization  of  the  Confession  into  a  mechanical 
literalism  which  then  becomes  chiefly  a  law  and  a  pledge 
for  subscription.  Each  of  the  two  extremes  is  destructive 
of  the  true  intent  of  a  Confession.  Where  a  Confession 
ceases  to  be  a  conviction  chiefly,  and  becomes  a  law  chiefly, 
it  is  a  failure.  The  principle  of  the  Confession  is  always 
the  principle  of  the  Gospel,  namely  Testimony,  and  the 
object  of  Testimony  is  neither  Enforcement  nor  Evasion, 
but  is  Teaching  and  Conviction.  To  these  the  external  Law 
of  Testimony,  where  it  is  necessary,  is  subsidiary. 

Tliis  presupposition  as  to  the  true  nature  of  the  Confessional  Principle 
h  fundamental,  anil  lies  back  of  any  proper  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
ture and  the  Confessions.     It  commits  the  confessor  to  the  whole  Confes- 


'•  "It  is  an  astonishing  phenomenon  in  a  Church  calling  itself  Evangelical 
Lutheiau,  that  there  should  h"  so  much  liberty  allowed  where  the  New  Testa- 
ment allows  none, — we  mean  in  Articles  of  Faith,  and  so  little  where  the  New 
Testament  allows  all  liberty,  we  mean  in  things  indifferent."— C.  P.  Krauth, 
Spaeth's  Life  of  Krauth,  II,  p.  19. 


Ixxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

sion,  words,  history,  aud  tnilli.  and  to  the  acceptation  of  every  statement," 
whether  of  doctrine  or  fact,  "in  its  own  trne.  native,  original  and  onlj' 
.sense,  so  that  those  who  confess  must  not  only  agree  to  use  the  same 
words,  but  use  and  understand  those  words  in  one  and  the  same  .sense"  ; 
but  it  places  that  which  is  local,  earthly,  and  historical,  and  pertains  to 
the  generation  from  which  the  Confession  emanated,  und(>r  the  ordinary 
laws  of  Providence,  Who  is  ahvays  guiding  the  affairs  of  the  Church  and 
world,  and  who  permits  men  aud  churches  to  remain  fallible;  and  not  un- 
der the  extraordinary  laws  of  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Who  spake 
II is  AVord  in  times  long  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets  and  the 
apostles.^ 

*'•  i'l).  "The  Confessional  Subscription,"  The  Lutheran,  March  5,  1908,  p. 
40."'. :  and  Feb.  20,  1008,  p.  3',tl,  and  "Confessional  Subscription,"  Lutheran 
M'orld,  March  24,  1908. 

^  The  distinction  between  "Articles  of  Faith"  and  ordinary  statements  of 
fact,  in  a  Confession,  is  historical  in  our  Church,  and  was  elaborated  in 
America,  in  an  article  on  "Symbolic  Theology'"  by  C.  F.  Schaeffer  (EcaiKjvlical 
Itericw,  April,  1850,  pp.  457-483).    Among  other  things  Prof.  Schaeffer  says: 

"If  our  symbolical  books  were  set  forth  in  the  form  of  the  three  ancient 
symbols,  presenting  barely  a  rigid  doctrinal  text,  and  nothing  cl.se,  we  would, 
on  assuming  the  whole  as  our  creed,  assume  also  all  the  details.  But  they 
present  a  wide  range  of  subjects,  communicate  doctrinal  truth,  interpret 
Scripture  passages,  quote  ancient  authors,  introduce  controversial  discussions, 
relate  historical  events,  refer  largely  to  persons  and  things  whose  importance 
diminishes  in  the  course  of  time,  until  it  fades  entirely  away,  and  are  as 
miscellaneous  in  their  character  as  various  boolis  of  the  Bible.  The  latter, 
Paul's  Epistles  for  instance,  by  no  means  intend  to  be  simply  creeds,  in  the 
technical  sense  of  the  word,  but  also  design  to  notice  passing  events  as  well 
as  to  teach  eternal  truth,  and  we  interpret  the  symb.  books  precisely  as  we 
interpret  the  Bible  it^self.  It  is  a  canon  universally  recognized  by  all  sound 
interpreters,  that  the  principles  of  interpretation  are  common  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  to  uninspired  compositions,  and  hence  the  same  general  rules  are 
applicable  to  the  symb.  books  which  guide  the  expounder  of  the  Bible.  We 
regard  the  Scriptures  as  our  sole  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  not  as  a  text- 
book for  scientific  lectures,  nor  as  a  volume  of  the  'Universal  History.'  Thus, 
too,  we  regard  the  symb.  books  as  the  expression  of  our  faith,  but  not  as  our 
Commentary  on  the  Scriptures.  If  I'aul  quotes  a  harsh  but  well-deserved  de- 
scription of  the  Cretians  by  the  poet  Epimenides,  whom  he  calls  a  'prophet.' 
(Titus  1:12),  and  if  Peter  (2  Peter  2:22)  is  equally  plain  in  his  strictures 
on  the  unfaithful,  the  force  of  their  language  does  not  detract  from  its  frutji. 
The  'cloak,  books  and  parchments'  of  St.  Paul,  and  'Alexander  the  coppersmitb.' 
(2  Tim.  4  :13.  14)  may  be  mentioned  in  an  apostolic  letter  as  really  existing, 
without  assuming  the  rank  of  articles  of  faith.  The  oration  of  Tertullus  is 
introduced  into  a  canonical  book  (Acts  ch.  24)  without  securing  our  appro- 
bation of  its  denunciations  of  St.  Paul  :  the  discourse  even  of  Gamaliel,  a 
'doctor  of  the  law  had  in  reputation,'  (Acts,  ch.  5)  is  characterized  only  l)y 
good  sense  but  not  by  inspiration  :  and.  in  this  manner,  large  portions  of  the 
■  contents  of  the  Scriptures  are  separated  from  the  creed  of  every  sincere 
Christian,  as  they  icere  not  intended  ty  the  sacred  icritcrs  to  constitute 
articles  of  faith,  but  were  necessarily  introduced  in  writings,  which,  besides 
conveying  doctrinal  truth,  and  precepts  of  morality,  were  designed  to  refer 
to  persons  and  things  of  a  local  and  temporary  character. 

"The  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  is  materially  influenced  by  I  he  inter- 
preter's theory  of  inspiration;  the  strictest  views  and  most  orthodox  senti- 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxv 

^bijerence  to  Confesisiionsi 

The  day  for  party  adherence  to  a  Church's  Confessional 
Answer  is  gone;  but  the  day  for  precise  expression  of  intel- 
ligent and  common  conviction  of  faith,  and  for  loyal  ad- 
herence to  it,  will  never  go.  The  Church  must  be  prepared 
to  answer  as  to  her  Faith.  Like  the  Word  of  God,  her  An- 
swer may  contain  that  on  which  the  believer  is  not  compe- 
tent to  use  his  judgment,  but  what  he  does  apprehend  will 
enable  him  not  to  stumble  at  historical,  or  critical  difficul- 
ties in  which  the  spiritual  treasures  of  all  ages  may  have 
been  enveloped  by  past  generations.  And  the  victories  of 
a  historical  Answer,  whose  fruits  are  being  enjoyed  today, 
will  awaken  in  us  the  love  and  the  loyalty  which  the  An- 
swer deserves. 

If  Christianity  is  to  make  a  fixed  and  steady  Answer  to 
God's  Word,  and  if  the  Christian  Church  is  to  teach  the 
unchanging  truth  of  that  Word,  Creeds  are  a  necessity. 
Creeds  are  the  Faith  in  fixed  form,  and  go  back  as  far  as 
the  Scripture. 

"In  fact,"  says  Prof.  Sohoddo,  "there  was  a  creecl  before  there  were  New 
Testament  writings,  in  the  Baptismal  Formula  of  Christ  Himself  (Matt. 
2S:15)),  whifh  formed  the  historical  and  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Apostles' 
and  later  formulas  of  faith.     Tliat  the  existence  of  such  faith  is  presup- 


nients,  however,  on  this  subjeet.  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  following 
passage:  "In  I  Cor.  7  :C.  10,  12,  25,  40,'  says  Olshausen  on  I  Corinth.  7.  P- 
563,  'we  find  that  the  apostle  distinguishes  between  his  own  and  the  Lord's 
declarations,  between  a  positive  command  of  Christ,  and  his  own  subjective 
opinion  or  judgment.  .  .  .  Although  it  is  clear  from  verse  40,  that  this  is  not 
designed  to  bi'  placed  in  opposition  to  inspiration,  since  It  truly  proceerted 
from  the  Holy  Ghost still  it  is  plain  that  I'aul  makes  Ibis  distinc- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  Intimating,  that  Christ's  command  Indeed,  but  not 
his  own  judgment,  must  be  unconditionally  fulfilled:  even  when  his  counsels 
are  not  followed,  (according  to  verse  SO  i  sin  is  not  necessarily  thereby  com- 
mitted    Where  doctrines  or  positive  commands  are  concerned,  Paul 

insists  on  his  apostolic  authority,  his  judgment  is  precisely  on  this  account 
decisive,  because  it  is  enlightened  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  But  in  adiaphora 
or  things  Indifferent,  it  Is  true  wisdom  to  refrain  from  positive  commands.' 
etc.  This  view  of  the  orthodox  commentator  is  established  on  the  principle, 
that,  while  the  declarations  of  the  apostles  are  to  be  regarded  as  obligatory 
in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  their  private  opinions,  however  worthy  of 
respect,  possess  no  absolute  authority.  In  truth,  this  principle  is  practically 
adopted  by  all  classes  of  Christians,  for  they  have  long  ceased  to  observe 
several  usages  described  in  the  Acts  as  established  or  sanctioned  by  the 
apostles.  Cthey  had  all  things  common,'  Acts  2  :44  :  4  :32  :  'look  ye  out  among 
you  seven  men,'  etc.  fi  :.'Vi   and  yet  subsequently  abandoned  without  sin." 


Ixxxvi  INTEODUCTTON 

posed  by  such  writings,  is  apparent  from  II  Tim.  13 :  14 ;  II  Tim.  6:  20; 
Heb.  6  :  1  sq." 

A  Confession  is  an  aolinowledgment  by  the  Church  of  what  the  Scrip- 
ture has  brought  to  lier.  A  fixed  Confessional  Principle,  drawn  from  Scrip- 
ture, as  the  essence  of  the  Church's  Testimony,  whether  it  proceed**  from 
the  general  life  of  the  Church,  without  an  individual  authorship,  as  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  or  be  promulgated  by  the  Councils  of  the  Church  such  as 
the  Nioene  Creed,  or  be  the  work  of  one  or  several  writers  acting  under 
the  sanction  of  the  Church,  as  were  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  is  a  ne- 
cessity. 

The  Confession  of  Christianity,  the  Confession  of  the 
Christian  Faith,  the  Confession  of  the  Evangelical  Luth- 
eran Faith,  is  not  an  idea  in  the  mind  of  man.  It  is  a  fixed 
fact.  It  is  a  recognition  of  God's  reality  as  revealed  in  His 
Word.  Its  principle  never  varies,  no  matter  in  how  many 
different  confessional  writings  it  may  be  embodied.  It 
continues  as  the  steady  line  of  truth  through  all  genera- 
tions. The  Lutheran  Confession  is  unchangeable.  "The 
Church  may  add  a  fuller  expression  of  its  doctrines,  but 
she  cannot  change  them."" 

Our  Confession  is  our  well-known  and  long-published 
conviction  of  the  entire  Teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  It 
is  not  an  assemblage  of  doctrines,  but  an  unchanging  en- 
tity. Hence  we  cannot  adjust  it  in  order  to  unite  with 
other  Christians.  Nor  can  we  assume  a  common  religious 
experience  for  all  evangelical  Christians,  from  which  we 
are  merely  differentiated  by  peculiarities. 

"We  cannot  begin  where  other  denominations  leave  off.  We  have  to 
grow  our  experience  from  the  beginning,  and  the  root  of  all  progress  .  .  . 
is  the  sense  of  necessity.'"'"  An  anonymous  writer  in  a  remarkable  article 
en  Justification  by  Faith,  in  the  EvangcHcal  Review  in  the  year  ISriO," 
explains  this  point  as  follows : 

"The  Reformed  theology  .  .  .  not  only  diverges  from  the  Lutheran  in 
single  points,  which  are  commonly  termed  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  but  it  is  an  essentially  different  system  from  beginning 
to  end.  Doctrines  which  are  apparently  identical  with  our  own.  if  viewed 
simply  by  themselves,  are  found  to  assume  (piite  another  shape,  when 
looked  upon  from  the  Tveformed  standpoint.    ...    In   the  Calvinistic,  as 


»  rrof.  Schodde. 

"Spaeth.  Life  of  Kraiilh,  ]>.  101. 

"77j.  p.   4^.. 

"  pp.  T2r>.2:,r>.    J:.r tract  on  i)p.  2P.1-237. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxvii 

well  as  all  Calvinizing  theologians,  the  doctrine  of  jus.tifioation  by  faith 
is  stripped  of  its  practical,  paramount  import.  It  is  a  mere  accessory.  .  .  . 

"Redemption  is  made  to  be  a  plan  or  device  over  which  God  presides 
precisely  as  the  mind  of  man  may  be  said  to  rule  a  machine,  and  Christ 
comes  in  simply  in  the  way  of  outward  instrumental  help  to  carry  out 
the  scheme.   .    .    . 

"Throughout  the  Protestant  world,  we  have  only  two  radhullij  diffcicm 
theories — ^the  Lutheran,  which  places  itself  on  Divine  grace  in  the  form 
of  Christian  life ;  and  the  Reformed,  which  is  also  based  confessedly  on 
grace,  but  in  bhe  farm  of  thought.  .   .   . 

"The  sacramental  doctrines  and  christology  of  lAither  were  no  outward 
fungus  upon  his  system.  They  lie  imbedded  in  its  inmost  life.  To  pnrt 
with  them  is  to  surrender  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  itself,  as  Luther 
had  it  in  his  mind,  and  to  rob  his  creed  of  its  original  physiognomy,  life 
and  heart." 

As  to  the  inner  constraint  which  a  confession  of  the 
Confessions  may  exercise  upon  the  thinking  mind,  it  is 
sufficient  to  quote  the  words  of  W,  J.  Mann : 

"No  one  should  receive  the  Lutheran  confession  on  the 
authority  of  another,  but  find  it  again  and  again,  as  a  re- 
sult of  his  own  investigations,  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
He  will  then  not  be  in  danger  of  lifeless  orthodoxy,  but 
heartily  rejoice  at  the  enlightened  understanding  with 
which  his  Church  has  been  favored,  and  gladly  proclaim 
her  doctrines.'"' 

Subscription  to  Confejfsfion 

As  to  the  binding  subscription  of  a  minister  or  Church, 
this  is  not  a  matter  of  Confession,  but  of  Church  Order. 
The  first  Verpflichtungsformel  was  drawn  up  before  the 
Lutheran  Church  possessed  its  Confession. 

In  December,  1.529,  by  Henry  Winckel,  a  quiet  and  faithful  minister, 
who  expressed  the  feelings  of  all  north  Germany  in  desiring  to  protect  the 
Chuix-h  against  the  teachings  of  Zwingli.  It  contained  a  vow  of  ordina- 
tion pledging  those  ordained  to  the  Bible  and  Luther's  writings.  The 
Wittenberg  Yerpflichtung  of  Melanchthon  of  1-lo.j  came  into  general  use. 
Osiander  combated  it  vigorously  in  1.552  in  language  similar  to  what  is 
heard  today :  "Not  a  word  is  said  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  given  by  God. 
.  .  .  What  other  result  can  such  an  oath  have  than  to  tear  away  from 
the  Holy  Scripture  those  who  swear  to  it,  and  bind  them  to  the  Symbols 
and  the  doctrine  of  Philip!"     A  graduate  of  Wittenberg  is  represented 


'-Mann.  Liitheranism  in  America.  IS.'T.  p.  70. 


Ixxxviii  INTEODUCTION 

by  Osiander  as  "a  poor  fellow  tied  up  with  obligations  to  an  oath  that 
strangles  and  confuses  his  conscience,  for  he  has  sworn  away  God's 
Word,  and  sworn  himself  to  Philip's  doctrine."'" 

In  defense,  Melanchthon  speaks  of  fanatics  then  arising  and  who  in 
oil  ac/es  will  be  spreading  false  doctrine.  The  obligation  is  honorable  in 
purpose,  and  not  at  all  a  "tyranny"  ;  for  the  promise  is  of  no  further  im- 
port than  a  repeating  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  is  necessary  in 
order  that  the  true  Church  may  be  distinguished.  The  Symbols  are  the 
boundary-line  markers.  Ijeyond  which  one  dare  not  go  without  danger,  to 
which  Tsehackert  remarks  that  this  is  "a  theological  judgment,  worthy 
of  being  respected  for  all  ages."  The  obligation  of  a  candidate  not  to  go 
ahead  in  theological  controversy  on  his  own  accord,  but  first  to  consult 
some  of  the  older  teachers,  Melanchthon  explains  as  follows :  "Unus  vir 
non  videt  omnia"  ;  and  "Nolumus  audacia  et  authadeia  juniorum  deleri 
ccclesiae  judicia."  Tsehackert  remarks,  "That  was  reason  enough.  The 
whole  address  is  a  standing  proof  of  Melanchthon's  genuine  chiirchly 
thoughlf Illness."    (p.  380.)" 

But  the  real  substance  of  the  Church's  objection  to  indi- 
vidual freedom  of  teaching  goes  deeper.  The  Lutheran 
Church  has  the  Word  and  the  Sacrament,  and  the  Office  for 
their  administration.  The  thing  taught  is  not  truths  and 
opinions  of  scholars,  but  the  well-established  and  univer- 
sally confessed  Word.  The  person  teaching  is  not  of  im- 
portance in  himself,  but  his  personal  mind  and  view  are 
submerged  in  the  Office.  The  person  holds  the  Office  only 
as  he  proclaims  and  applies  that  which  the  Church  con- 
fesses as  the  Word.  He  is  bound  to  this,  not  chiefly  by 
a  subscription,  but  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  To  maintain 
the  doctrine  of  personal  freedom  of  teaching  in  Church 
and  school,  really  denies  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
Office,  the  Word,  and  the  Church. 

Luther  himself  speaks  strongly  against  concession  to  individual  opin- 
ions, e.  g. :  "He  who  holds  his  teaching,  faith  and  confession  to  be  true, 
cannot  stand  in  the  same  stall  with  those  who  teach  false  doctrine  or  are 
inclined  thereto.  A  teacher  who  is  silent  against  error  and  still  professes 
to  be  a  true   teaclK'r,   is   wor.se   than  an   open   fiinntic.   doing  more   harm. 


"  r.  Tsehackert,  pp.  37S.  370. 

"Compare  G.  Rietschel.  Luther  viul  die  Onliiialimi.  2  -Viifi.  ISS!).— \V. 
Kiililer,  Ifeformation  itnd  Ke1~eri>>n.~e^s  I'.Mil. — P.  Itrows,  Die  Ordinalion, 
Priifiiny  und  Lehrrerpflichlinn/  dcr  Ordiiiunden  in  Wil lenhern  l."):i.">.  (iiessen 
1904. 


I  X  T  R  O  D  r  C  T  I  O  X  Ixxxix 

.    .    .    He  would  uot   offend  anybody — uot   proclaim  tlip  Word   for  Christ, 
nor  paiu  the  devil  aud  the  world.""'' 

"It  is  an  awful  thing  to  me  to  hear  that  both  parties  approach  and  re- 
ceive the  sacrament  in  one  and  the  same  church  and  at  one  and  the  same 
altar,  and  that  the  one  party  is  to  believe  that  it  receives  nothing  but 
bread  and  wine,  and  the  other  is  to  believe  that  it  receives  the  true  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  I  often  doubt  if  it  is  to  be  believed  that  a  pastor 
could  be  so  hardened  and  malicious  as  to  keep  silent  and  permit  both 
parties  to  go,  each  according  to  its  opinion  that  they  all  receive  the  same 
sacrament,  but  each  party  according  to  its  faith. "'° 

(Cbolution  of  tfje  llugsburg  Confegsion 

In  the  Augsburg  Confession,  tJie  Renewed  Church  of 
Chriat  in  the  German  Reformation  confessed  the  real  Gos- 
pel, when  formally  called  to  account  by  the  old  world-order. 
The  old  world-order  was  the  supreme  authority  in  Church 
and  State. 

Luther  as  an  imlividual  had  made  bold  answer  to  this  authority  as 
early  as  1521.  For  one  decade  the  question  in  Europe  was  whether  and 
how  the  liberty-answer  of  Luther  should  become  the  answer  of  an  Evan- 
gelical Church,  or  whether  and  how  the  old  world-order  could  throttle 
the  new  spirit  in  the  Church.  In  lo2G  the  Evangelical  or  Luther-confes- 
sion of  Christianity  in  the  Churches  gained  legal  standing.  At  the  Diet 
in  1529  the  Emperor  and  the  Roman  Church  succeeded  by  a  majority 
Aote  in  removing  that  legal  standing,  and  in  ordering  all  churches  to  re- 
turn to  the  faith  and  practices  of  Rome. 

On  April  17th,  19th,  25th,  1529,  the  Evangelical  minor- 
ity protested,  in  legal  form,  against  the  decision  at  Spires, 
and  appealed  to  the  Emperor,  to  the  next  free  General 
Council  of  Christendom,  or  to  an  Assembly  of  the  German 
Nation.  The  Diet  at  Augsburg  was  the  result  of  that  ap- 
peal, and  the  Augsburg  Confession  proved  to  be  the  final 
and  historical  answer  of  Lutheranism,  as  to  its  own  exist- 
ence, and  in  contrast  with  a  more  radical  Protestantism, 
and  with  heresies  with  which  it  was  unwilling  to  be  con- 
fused, to  the  Emperor  and  Rome. 

The  Evangelical  Princes  left  the  Diet  of  Spires  with  the  threat  of  ex- 
termination hanging  over  their  heads.     No  one  knew  what  would  happen 


"Tra7c7i.  xnr,  p.  1477. 

«/&.  p.  2446. 


xc  INTKODUCTION 

rfter  the  Emperor  had  received,  read,  and  determiued  his  action  on  the 
l)rotest  and  appeal   of  the  Protestants. 

The  Protestants  were  united  among  themselves  only  as  to  protest.  It 
is  true  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  had  made 
an  alliance  on  the  basis  of  Torgau  152(3,  and  Magdeburg,  at  the  Diet  of 
Spires,  together  with  the  cities  of  Nuremberg,  Ulm,  and  Strasburg,  for 
defense  against  attack,  or  against  interference  in  the  spiritual  super- 
vision of  the  Churches;  but  this  alliance  was  made  hurriedly,  and  the 
Elector  and  Melanchthon  returned  from  the  Diet  greatly  worried  con- 
cerning it.  No  details  had  been  considered,  but  delegates  were  to  meet 
at  Rotach  in  June  and  adopt  terms  of  agreement.  Yet  how  could  a  Pro- 
testantism agree  in  action,  when  its  only  ultimate  soui'ce  of  unity  was  the 
negative  one  of  protest? 

From  the  fountainhead,  Protestantism  was  divided. 
There  was  an  irresponsible  revolutionary  wing,  which  al- 
ready had  grasped  the  sword,  and  which  the  Elector  and 
Luther  had  disclaimed.  There  was  a  radical  wing,  with 
Zwingli  at  its  head,  which  was  rationalistic  and  looked  to 
reason  as  much  as  to  the  Gospel  for  authority,  and  was 
eager  to  carry  the  religious  difficulty  into  politics.  And 
there  was  the  conservative  or  Lutheran  wing  which  desired 
to  remain  obedient  in  all  things,  (but  with  freedom  and  a 
good  conscience  as  to  the  Gospel,)  to  the  existing  civil 
constitution. 

It  was  the  life  aim  of  one  lay  Lutheran  leader  of  magni- 
ficent executive  ability,  but  of  defective  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, Philip  of  Hesse,  to  unite  these  wings  and  make  them 
parties  in  a  common  cause  which  he  foresaw  would  soon 
come  to  a  clash  with  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor.  He 
therefore,  already  in  the  spring  of  1529,  attempted  to  get 
the  spiritual  leaders  of  the  Protestant  cause  to  his  castle 
at  Marburg  in  order  that  they  might  settle  their  religious 
differences  and  enter  into  a  Protestant  Federation  against 
the  forces  of  the  Pope  and  Emperor ;  but  by  this  time  the 
Elector's  leaders  had  discovered  that  the  Protestant  agree- 
ment entered  into  hurriedly  at  Spires  also  contemplated  a 
political  alliance  against  the  Emperor. 

Melanchthon,  who  had  Iiorne  the  l)runt  of  the  protest  at  Spires,  was 
verj'  much  opposed  to  such  a  collocjuy  at  Marluiru:.  aud  during  the  month 


INTRODUCTION  -^^i 

of  May  holli  ho  (Htli)  and  LuIIiit  {'2'2d)  warucd  the  Eloi-lor  agaiusL  it. 
The  Eleftor  in  his  auxiety  did  not  go  to  Rotach,  but  scut  llaus  von 
Minkwitz  with  instructions  to  agree  only  to  an  alliance  in  defence  of 
Articles  of  Faith  to  be  decided  on  at  a  future  meeting.  Nuremberg,  and 
the  Margrave,  took  the  same  position.  Un  June  li.Sth  Luther  again  ex- 
pressed himself  against  the  Federation. 

One  day  later,  on  the  29ih  of  .Juno,  ihe  peace  of  Barcelona  was  con- 
cluded between  the  Emperor  and  the  I'ope,  who  hitherto  had  not  been  at 
one  for  political  reasons,  and  among  the  items  of  agreement  was  one  in 
which  the  Emijeror  promised  to  root  out  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 

During  the  month  of  July  (12th),  Charles  accordingly  sent  out  a 
warning  to  the  Estates,  and  on  the  0th  of  August  he  landed  at  Genoa 
from  Spain,  for  the  purpo.se  of  being  crowned  by  the  Pope,  of  entering 
into  a  further  understanding  with  him,  of  stamping  diflFerences  out  of  the 
Church,  and  of  firmly  uniting  both  the  Empire  and  the  Church, 

Meantime  the  convention  met  at  Rotach  and  issued  such  an  unsatis- 
factory Confederation-Notel,  that  Philip  of  Hesse  came  all  the  way  to 
Wittenberg  on  July  1st  to  arrange  for  the  colloquy  at  Marburg.  On  July 
8th  a  meeting  of  the  representatives  of  the  Elector,  the  Margrave,  and 
Philii).  was  held  at  Saalfeld,  but  as  neither  the  Elector  nor  the  Margrave 
were  willing  to  include  the  radical  Protestants  of  Strasburg  and  the 
Swiss  cities  in  the  alliance,  no  result  was  attained. 

It  recently  has  been  supposed  that  from  the  middle  of 
July  to  the  middle  of  September  articles  for  the  alliance 
of  the  Princes  were  being  gradually  formulated  in  order 
to  be  ready  for  the  coming  convention  at  Schleiz,  and  that 
these  articles,  completed  before  the  Marburg  Colloquy,  are 
the  articles  carried  to  Schwabach  and  presented  there  on 
the  18th  of  October  (von  Schubert  in  Zeitschrift  filr 
Kir  Cheng  escMchte,  XXIX.  Band,  3.  Heft,  p.  377.  See 
also  J.  J.  Miiller,  Histone,pi).  280  et  seqq. ;)"  but  we  have 


^' The  Coufessional  Historn  says  (p.  22^  ■-The  Schwabach  Articles  are  ut- 
terly incompatible  with  the  frame  of  mind  which  both  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon  brought  with  them  from  Marburg,  unless  we  are  willing  to  conclude  that 
both  are  doublefaced."  Yet  on  October  4th  Luther  wrote  to  his  wife.  "We 
do  not  want  the  -brethren  and  members'  business  :'  "  and  on  October  12th  he 
wrote  to  Agricola,  "They  requested  that  we  should  at  least  regard  them  as 
brethren  :  but  it  was  not  possible  to  consent  to  it.  Nevertheless  we  did  extend 
to  them  the  hand  of  peace  and  love,  that  now  bitter  writings  and  words 
may  cease,  and  every  one  may  hold  his  faith  without  hostile  assaults,  yet  not 
without  defence  and  confutation.  Thus  we  parted."  Melanchthon  in  a 
postscript  to  the  same  letter  calls  the  whole  matter  a  farce. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  psychological  temper  of  the.se  men  in  those  Octo- 
ber days  to  prevent  them  from  honestly  composing  the  Schwabach  Articles- 


xcii  INTRODUCTIOX 

not  found  the  reasons  urged  for  this  transfer  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Schwabach  Articles  to  the  early  date  conclu- 
sive." 

Duriug  ibe  month  of  September  the  deputies,  sent  earlier  by  those  pro- 
testing at  the  Diet  of  Spires,  found  the  Emperor,  and  were  received  un- 
graciously, and  on  the  12th  of  October  the  Emperor  replied  to  them  that 
the  minority  must  submit  to  the  Decree  of  Spires,  and  that  means  would 
be  found  to  compel  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  others  to  bow  to  the 
inevitable.  Hence,  on  October  14th,  came  the  appeal  of  the  Protestant 
Estates  to  a  Christian  Council. 

Meantime  Philip  had  succeeded  in  getting  the  two  wings 
of  Protestantism  together  at  Marburg  on  the  first  four 
days  of  October,  but  without  an  agreement,  and  the  Mar- 
burg Articles  had  been  drawn  up  (4th).  Luther  went 
from  Marburg  to  Schleiz,  whither  the  Elector  had  sum- 
moned him  as  well  as  Melanchthon  and  Jonas,  in  order  to 
deliberate  on  the  organizing  of  an  alliance  embracing  those 
Protestants  alone  who  were  in  the  full  unity  of  the  Luth- 
eran faith.  On  October  16th  the  Estates  met  again,  and 
the  Elector  proposed  to  them  the  Schwabach  Articles  that 
probably  had  been  written  by  Luther,"  at  the  request  of  the 
Elector,  perhaps  at  Schleiz;  and  the  imperial  cities 
Strasburg  and  Ulm  declined  to  sign  them. 


'*  r.  T.  E.  Schmank  in  Lulhnnn  Cliiiifh  Prvicir.  XXVIII,  p.  278,  Is  There 
Any  yew  Light  C'onccrniny  the  Hchicabach  Articles f 

"The  "Articles  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  touching  the  faith,"  prepared  by 
Luther  at  the  Elector's  request,  and  laid  before  the  Assembly  of  the  States  at 
^chirahach." — Krauth,  Chronicle  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  p.  12.  "The 
Confessional  History,"  p.  29,  quotes  Luther's  Treface  written  against  the 
Hans  Bern  edition,  as  follows:  "It  is  true  that  I  helped  to  compose  such 
articles,  for  they  were  not  composed  by  me  alone."  "The  Confessional  Hix- 
tonj"  quotes  from  the  declaration  at  Scbmalkald.  Dec.  l.">2!>,  that  "the  articles 
of  faith  were  very  carefully  considered,  and  were  composed  with  the  wise 
<'ouiisel  of  learned  and  unlearned  counsellors."  and  concludes  from  this. 
"Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  hand  of  Melanchthon  was  quite  as 
active  in  composing  those  articles  as  was  the  hand  of  Luther."  Vid.  also 
'•The  Confessional  Hisfnri/:'  pp.  9,  21,  61-62,  68:  but  "The  Confessional  Hi"- 
tory's"  conclusions  as  to  these  Articles  are  overdrawn.  The  Elector  himself 
had  part  in  them.  Vid.  also  Kolde.  Augshnrg  Konfession .  p.  119  ff..  and  v. 
Schubert,  Jieitrage  :;ur  (rcschichte  der  erang.  Bel'cnntnis-  n.  Biinrlnishihlinig, 
l.")2t»-30:  Zeit.  Kirch.  Gesch.  XXTX,  3  tl908>,  and  f .  :  Tschackert.  Die  Enf- 
stehung  der  hith.  ii.  d.  reformierten  Kirchenlehre.  1910.  p.  281.  simply  says. 
"The  17  Schwabach  Articles  contain  the  chief  articles  of  Lutheran  doctrine 
cut  dear  and  sharp." 

Eor  Luther's  copy  of  the  Schwabach  Articlps  r.  Erl.  24.  3.34  sq.  For  Ulm 
Ms.  V.  Weber  I,  Appendix.  For  Strasburg  copy  v.  Kolde,  Augsh.  Konf.  II. 
Beilage. 


INTRODUCTION  xciii 

On  the  5th  of  November  the  Emperor  entered  Bologna 
and  met  the  Pope.  The  Pope  insisted  on  his  stamping  out 
the  Protestants,  but  the  imperial  chancellor  Mercurinus 
pled  for  a  Christian  Council.  The  Emperor  was  thus  in- 
clined, but  the  Pope  would  not  hear  to  it. 

By  the  end  of  November,  word  reached  Germany  that  the*Spires'  depu- 
ties had  been  arrested  and  imprisoned.  A  convention  of  the  Protestants 
was  held  at  Schmalkald,  and  the  three  deputies,  escaped  from  the 
Emperor,  were  present.  The  Lutherans  still  held  to  their  two  great  prin- 
ciples, that  there  could  be  no  agreement  between  contrary  faiths,  and  no 
alliance  between  politics  and  religion  ;  and  decided  that  only  those  who 
signed  the  Schwabach  Articles  should  meet  at  Nuremberg  on  the  0th  of 
January. 

On  the  21st  of  January,  the  Emperor  issued  a  Call, 
which  summoned  all  the  Estates  to  Augsburg,  in  words 
that  seemed  full  of  hope. 

He  desired  to  put  an  end  to  discord,  to  hear  both  sides  of  the  case,  and 
to  decide  according  to  that  which  was  right.  However,  his  entrance  to 
Germany,  where,  during  the  early  spring  he  held  court  at  Innsbruck,  gave 
the  Catholic  south  German  Estates,  especially  through  the  appearance 
of  the  theses  of  John  Eck,  an  opportunity,  eagerly  fostered  by, the  papal 
representatives,  to  prejudice  the  Emperor's  mind  against  the  Protestants, 
and  to  attempt  to  abort  the  holding  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg. 

In  March  (11th),  the  Elector  received  the  Emperor's 
Call."'  He  consulted  with  his  Chancellor,  Britck  who  sug- 
gested that  a  Confession  be  drawn,  and  that  it  be  presented 
at  the  Diet.''    The  Elector  determined  to  bring  forward  his 


2"  "At  the  court  of  the  Elector  much  was  expected  of  this  Diet,  for  it  was 
considered  to  be  a  substitute  for  the  Council  hitherto  wished  for  in  vain. 
Therefore  the  Elector  ordered  the  Wittenberg  theologians  to  consult  regarding 
all  articles  of  controversy.  ...  At  the  close  of  the  Torgau  Articles,  it  is 
referred  to  the  Elector,  that  if  any  one  still  desires  to  know  what  is  taught 
in  his  land,  there  are  also  articles  of  doctrine  which  he  could  deliver.  As 
such  articles  of  doctrine  the  Schwabach  articles  were  extant.  So  the  Elector 
already  had  two  valuable  prefatory  labors  that  could  be  wrought  out  further 
according  to  need." — Tschackert.  Die  Fntstehiino  tier  hitherlsrheii  uinl 
tier  reforwierten  Kirchenlelrte,  p.  282. 

"  F.  Brfick's  Letter  to  the  Elector,  on  this  important  subject.  Bruck  said. 
"Inasmuch  as  the  Imperial  Rescript  provides  that  the  opinion  and  view  of 
each  one  is  to  be  heard,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  us  to  bring  together 
systematically,  in  writing,  the  views  maintained  by  our  party,  and  to  fortify 
Ihem  out  of  Holy  Writ,  so  as  to  present  them  in  writing,  in  case  the  preachers 
should  not  he  admitted  to  participation  in  the  transactions.  This  will  facili- 
tate business,  and  it  will  serve  to  remove  misunderstanding  to  have  such 
views  and  opinions  presented." — F6r  stem  ami,  I.  p,  39. 


xciv  INTRODUCTION 

side  of  the  case  at  the  Diet  without  alliance  with  any  of  the 
other  Protestants." 

On  March  14th  he  commanded  his  four  theologians  to  prepare  a  paper 
on  the  Articles  of  Faith  in  dispute.  On  March  2ii,  "The  arricles  'not  to 
he  yielded"  are  determined  on." — Krauth,  Chronicle,  p.  13. 

In  the  beginning  of  April  (3d),  his  theologians  left  Wittenberg  for  the 
Electoral  court  at  Torgau.^'  A  fortnight  later  (15th),  the  Elector  and  his 
procession  arrived  at  Coburg,  after  some  days'  stay  at  Weimar. 

Easter  (17th)  was  spent  there,  and  a  few  days  later  (23d),  in  as 
much  as  the  Elector  could  not  secure  a  safe-conduct  for  Luther  from  the 
city  of  Augsburg,  and  not  even  from  Nuremberg,  Luther  was  taken  to  the 
castle  at  Coburg.-^  On  the  3(>lh  the  Elector  received  his  safe-conducl  into 
Augsburg.^ 

Early  in  May  (2d),  the  Elector  reached  Augsburg,"  and 
liearing  of  the  great  change  of  sentiment  at  the  imperial 
court,  due  to  the  publication  of  Eck's  theses,  he  sent "'  a 


^-"Thc  ConfeDftioiHil  Ilistorn"  is  not  correct  in  emphasizing,  above  all.  the 
fact  th.it  "the  Saxon  Coiu't  at  Torgau  was  fully  possessed  by  the  thought, 
desire  and  purpose  of  reconciliation  with  the  Church."  and  that  this  "explains 
the  conduct  and  the  concessions  of  the  entire  electoral  party  in  the  negotia- 
tions subsequently  made  at  Augsburg  for  the  complete  restoration  of  concord 
and  unity."  All  this  was  only  true  of  the  period  before  the  month  of  June, 
and  true  only  upon  the  basal  condition  laid  down  by  the  Emperor  himself  that 
holh  .tides  would  be  fairli/  heard,  and  a  right  and  just  result  would  be  arrived 
at.  The  theory  of  "The  Confe.ssionnl  Blttorij"  is  disproved  by  the  Elector's 
sturdy  and  continued  refusal,  at  the  very  start,  to  give  up  preaching  in 
Augsburs.  and  by  all  his  action  prior  to  the  opening  of  and  during  the  Diet. 

-3  April  t\.  "Melan<"hthon  begins  to  write  the  heads  of  doctrine  to  be  pre- 
sented at  the  Diet." — Kraiilli.  dironide  of  Ihe  AiiiisJiinfi  Confession,  p.  14. 

2^  For  reasons  why  Luther  was  left  at  Coburg,  cp.  "The  Confesninnal  Hi-i- 
tory"  pp.  .ST-SO,  in  which  the  facts  are  well  given,  although  the  conclusion 
may  not  be  entirely  .iustifiable. 

-■'•The  Safe-conduct  says,  "But  we  make  an  exception,  if  TTis  Electoral 
Orace  should  have  wilh  him  and  bring  hither  any  one  who  has  broken  tlie 
peace  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  and  of  the  Holy  Empire,  and  become  liable  to 
penalty  and  puuisliment  :  lo  such  an  one  we  have  no  power  to  grant  a  safe- 
conduct."    Miillvr.  p.   t.">4.    I'firstemann,  I,  pp.  100,  101,  No.  01. 

="  "Here  it  was  immediately  learned  that  the  Bavarian  Dukes  had  com- 
missioned the  theological  faculty  at  Ingolstadt  to  gather  together  all  the 
heresies  of  Luther  and  to  show  how  they  might  bf  refuted  most  effectively. 
Then  came  Eck's  theses  dedicaled  to  th(>  Kniijemr  and  tlie  realm." — T.'<rhaek- 
ert.  p.  283. 

"On  May  12th  already.  Campeggius  sent  a  Despatch  from  Innsbruck  to 
Rome,  still  preserved,  which  is  translated  by  the  author  of  "The  Confe.tsionol 
Ifisfoni"  as  follows:  "The  Elector  of  Saxony  has  sent  to  the  Emperor  at 
Innsbruck  a  Declaration  of  his  Faith,  which,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  is  entirely 
catholic  at  the  beginning,  but  full  of  poison  at  the  end."  r.  Brieger,  Kirchen- 
fiesehiehi'liche  Fitiidien  fiir  Jfeiiier.  1SS7.  p.  312.  For  an  Enslish  translation 
of  the  Confession  Sent  to  the  Emperor,  made  from  a  coi)y  secured  by  the 
author  of  "The  Confex.tioiinl  II istorii."  in  1000,  from  the  secret  archives  of 
the  Pope,  and  the  copy  itself,   r    Lidherun    Qiiarlrrh/,     July,  1901. 


INTRODUCTION  -^cv 

translation  of  the  Schwabach  Articles  to  the  Emperor  as 
his  confession  of  faith,  while  Hans  Bern  created  a  sensa- 
tion by  printing  these  Articles  as  the  coming  Augsburg 
Confession. 

A  few  days  later  (May  4th),  Melanchthon  informed 
Luther  that  he  had  made  the  Exordiunf'  of  the  electoral 
Apology  more  elaborate,  and,  a  few  days  later  still,  because 
of  the  slanders  of  Eck,  he  transformed  the  Apology  into  a 
Confession  embracing  nearly  all  the  Articles  of  Faith,  On 
the  11th  this  Confession  was  sent  to  Luther.'"  On  the  12th 
Philip  of  Hesse  arrived  at  Augsburg,  soon  to  agitate  for  a 
Common  Confession  to  include  also  the  Zwinglians. 

On  the  15th  the  Nuremberg  delegates  came, "  having  a 
confession  written  by  their  preachers,  with  which  Melanch- 
thon was  pleased.  The  next  day  they  learned  from  the 
Elector  that  his  Confession  was  ready,  and  had  been  sent 
to  Luther.'' 


^•^  Forstomann.  UrkinulrnJnirh,  I,  fiS-84.  Kraiilh.  writing  loiip:  prior  to  the 
discovery  of  the  earliest  known  draft  of  the  Confession  l).v  Kulde.  iiiaiuiains 
strenuously,  in  the  interest  of  a  completed  confession  sent  to  Luther  on  May 
11th,  that  the  exordium  was  not  a  mere  preface,  but  probably  a  summary  of 
doctrine.  Chioriolof/i/  uf  tite  Aiujuhurfj  VonfrsxioH,  pp.  17-1!).  21.  The  C'oit- 
.srrriiiirr  ReforiiKitioii .  pp.  222.  22.3.  See  also  the  'Preface'  itself  in  (his  vol- 
ume, ])p.  2.">l-250.  See  "The  Coiifessioiinl  Jlintorif."  pp.  .^i< »-.')."',.  The  Confes- 
sional llifitoiu,  p.  73,  says:  "The  discovery  of  the  'long  and  rhetoi'ical  Pre- 
face' has  put  to  flight  forc-ver  the  figment  that  the  'Articles  of  Faith"  consti- 
tute the  Preface  of  which  Melanchthon  writes  to  I.uther  on  tlie  fourth  of 
May,"  to  wliich  we  may  add  that  the  discovery  has  also  'put  to  flight  for- 
ever the  figment'  that  the  chief  credit  for  the  success  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  a  statesmanlike  document  inheres  in  Melanchthon.  It  has  shown 
tth)!  Melanchthon's  long  and  elaborate  effort   had  to  be  altogether  discarded. 

-"  Tschackert  expresses  his  views  as  follows:  "Melauchtlion  would  indeed 
have  wished  that  liUther  had  made  a  more  thorough  examination  of  the 
articles  of  faith  (Vellem  percurrisses,  Tschaekert,  p.  28.3).  What  Luther  sent 
(i)  Melanchthon  was  doubtless  the  whole  Augsburg  Confession,  as  fai-  as  ir 
was  then  complete,  and  probably  both  texts,  tlie  Oei-man  and  the  Latin." 

"0  Strohel  Miscclkiii..  IL  p.  22. 

"'  On  the  following  day.  May  17th,  Kress  was  told  by  P.ruck  that  the  Elector 
"thougli  he  had  been  first  of  ail  ready  with  his  Connsel  concerning  this 
Article"  (of  the  faith),  "and  that  consequently  the  same  (Counsel)  had  been 
put  into  writing  in  German  and  Latin,  yet  that  it  had  not  yet  been  finally 
closed,  and  had  been  sent  to  Doctor  Luther  to  examine,  and  that  it  was  ex- 
pected that  it  would  be  back  from  him  tomorrow  or  the  day  after  (May  IT 
or  IS),  and  he  (the  Chancellor)  did  not  doubt  that  when  the  aforesaid  propo- 
sition (the  Counsel)  came,  a  copy  of  it  would  be  given  to  us  if  we  requested 
it."    Corp.   Ref..   U.  No.  COO. 

The  same  day  the  Nuremberg  delegates  wi'ote  again  to  Nuremberg.  "His 
Electoral  Grace  would  abide  by  the  answer  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  previous 


xcvi  INTRODUCTION 

On  the  22d  Melanchthon  was  ready  to  send  Luther  the 
Confession  a  second  time,  with  the  changes/'  On  the  24th 
the  Margrave  George  arrived,  while  Briick  was  working 
"vornen  und  hinten"  on  the  Confession,  which,  it  was  then 


evening,  to  wit :  that  as  soon  as  the  Counsel  (Rathschlag)  came  back  from 
Luther  it  should  be  furnished  to  us."  In  the  same  letter  they  mention  that 
at  the  mandate  of  the  Electov  they  then  eutered  in  the  Counsel  of  the  Nurem- 
berg preachers. 

By  May  20th  Melanchthon  had  examined  it,  and  told  the  Nurembergers 
that  it  was  almost  the  same  in  meaning  as  the  electoral  confession,  but  that 
the  latter  was  milder. 

22  The  position  taken  l)y  Krauth,  viz.,  that  there  were  three  separate  send- 
ings  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  by  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  the  first  on  May 
11th,  the  second  on  May  22nd,  and  the  third  before  it  was  delivered  (between 
June  8th  and  25th;,  has  become  historic  in  America.  (CousercatiLe  liefor- 
maiion,  pp.  227-241).  This  position  was  taken  in  1871.  Unfortunately  in 
'■'I'he  Vonscrvathc  Reformation,"  on  p.  234,  Luther's  letter  of  July  3rd  to 
Melanchthon  in  which  he  says,  "I  yesterday  re-read  your  Apology  entire,  with 
care,  and  it  pleases  me  exceedingly,"  is  printed  as  being  of  date  of  June  3rd, 
through  a  slip  of  the  pen  or  a  typographical  eiror. 

In  1877.  Dr.  Conrad  (''First  Did,"  p.  200)  in  an  essay  at  the  First  Free 
Lutheran  Diet  in  America,  said  that  the  Confession  was  sent  to  Luther  "be- 
tween the  22d  of  May  and  the  2d  of  June".  This  statement  was  based  on 
the  typographical  error  in  the  Conservative  Reformation,  and  its  correctness 
was  called  into  question  on  the  floor  of  the  Diet.  Dr.  J.  A.  Brown  ("First 
Diet."  p.  237)  challenged  proof  of  the  fact.  Dr.  Krauth,  in  a  note,  added  in 
answer  to  Dr.  Brown's  challenge,  in  the  printed  discussions  of  the  Diet, 
defends  the  essential  statement  of  the  Conservative  Reformation,  namely, 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  "was  sent  as  nearly  as  possible  in  its  complete 
shape  to  Luther  for  a  third  time,  before  it  was  delivered,  and  was  approved 
by  him  in  what  may  probably  be  called  its  final  form."  (''First  Diet,"  pp. 
238-242). 

The  next  year  (August  1878),  Dr.  Krauth  published  "A  Chronicle  of  the 
Auf/shvrg  Confession"  (Philadelphia.  J.  Frederick  Smith,  Publisher,  1878), 
which  he  designed  to  be  "supplementary,  in  some  sense,  to  the  'Conservative 
Ueformation",  and  to  the  Essays  and  Debates  of  the  'First  Lutheran  Diet", 
IMiiladelphla,  1877."  Both  in  the  Conservative  Reformation,  and  in  this 
Chronicle  (pp.  2(;-31,  73-70),  Dr.  Krauth  presents  an  exhaustive  argument  to 
show  that  Luther  received  Melanchthon's  letter  of  May  22d,  and  that  all  con- 
temporary and  later  historians  regard  this  fact  as  proof  that  Luther  received 
the  Confession  a  second  time  on  May  22d. 

In  support  of  Melanchthon's  third  sending  of  the  Confession  to  Luther, 
prior  to  its  delivery.  Dr.  Krauth  quotes  and  analyzes  Melanchthon's  own 
description  of  the  writing  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  made  just  prior  to 
Melanchthon's  death  (Clironiclc  of  the  Avcjshurff  Confession,  pp.  54-61,  83- 
02)  ;  while  Dr.  Jacobs,  in  a  separate  essay  entitled  "A  Question  of  Lalinity", 
analyzes  the  meaning  of  the  disputed  phrases  in  Melanchthon's  letter.  This 
work  reveals  the  intimate  and  minute  acquaintance  of  Dr.  Krauth  with  the 
formative  stages  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  He  thoroughly  appreciated 
the  fact  that  up  to  the  second  week  in  June,  the  Confession  was  a  Saxon 
document,  and  he  has  examined  every  scrap  of  available  evidence,  in  a  mas- 
terly manner.  But  he  never  saw  the  draft  of  the  Confession  discovered  by 
Kolde,  which  throws  so  much  light  on  the  nature  of  the  "exordium"  and  on 
other  important  points. 


INTRODUCTION  xcvii 

said,  was  to  be  issued  in  German,  Latin  and  French.  On 
the  same  day  the  Emperor  sent  an  embassy  commanding 
the  Elector  to  silence  the  preaching,  but  the  Elector  (31st) 
replied  that  he  cannot  do  without  the  Gospel.  On  the  28th 
Briick  and  his  lay  counsellors  were  making  changes  in  the 
Confession  so  as  to  put  it  in  such  a  form  as  would  conform 
with  the  Emperor's  Call  and  other  legal  conditions  so  that 
the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  would  not  be  able  to  ignore  it." 
On  the  29th  the  Landgrave  made  efforts  to  participate  in 
the  Confession.  On  the  31st  the  Estates  request  the  Em- 
peror to  hasten  to  Augsburg;  and  the  Confession  is  com- 
municated without  Preface  or  Conclusion  to  the  delegates 
of  Nuremberg."* 

Early  in  June  (3d),  Duke  George  and  Cochliius  make 
overtures  to  Melanchthon.  On  the  next  day  (4th), 
Melanchthon  writes  to  the  Archbishop  of  Maintz  to  see  to 
it  that  war  does  not  arise.  On  the  same  day  the  imperial 
chancellor  dies,  and  two  days  later  (6th),  the  Emperor 
leaves  Innsbruck  for  Augsburg.'"  On  the  next  day  (7th). 
Luther's  admonition  to  the  clergy  reaches  Augsburg.  A 
day  later  Vogler  points  out  that  the  Saxon  Apology  is  only 
in  the  name  of  the  Elector,'"  and  three  days  later  the  Land- 
grave opposes  submitting  the  religious  question  to  the 
Diet,  and  again  tries  to  secure  confederation  with  the 
Zwinghans.  Three  days  later  still  (13th),  Melanchthon 
opposes  the  Landgrave's  views  and  is  willing  to  harmonize 


33  The  Nuremberg  Legates  write,  "The  Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
told  us  that  the  Counsellors  and  the  learned  men  were  holding  daily  sittings 
on  their  Counsel  in  matters  of  faith,  to  make  changes  in  it,  and  improve  it, 
to  the  intent  that  they  might  put  it  and  present  it  in  svich  form,  that  it  could 
not  well  be  passed  by  :  so  that  a  hearing  of  the  matter  must  be  accorded, 
when  they  shall  be  ready  with  the  Counsel.  We  shall  apply  again,  that  we 
may  send  it  to  you." 

2<  On  June  3d  the  Nuremberg  delegates  received  the  Preface  and  sent  the 
Confession  home  with  the  remark,  "An  article  or  two  are  lacking  at  the  end. 
together  with  the  Conclusion,  at  which  the  Saxon  theologians  are  still 
working." 

"  About  this  time  Luther  had  received  intelligence  from  Nuremberg  "that 
the  Emperor  is  not  coming  to  the  Diet  at  all.  and  that  the  whole  thing  will 
prove  a  failure."  On  the  5th  he  wrote  to  Linke.  "I  am  sorry  to  hear  that 
there  are  doubts  about  the  Diet."  and  gives  as  the  reason  why  he  does  not 
want  so  many  visitors  at  Coburg  that  "it  would  offend  the  Prince." 

26  See  also  letter  of  the  Nuremberg  delegates  to  the  Nuremberg  Senate. 
C.  R.  n,  p.  715. 


xcviii  INTKODUCTION 

with  Rome  if  five  practical  points  are  conceded.  He  v/rites 
to  Luther  that  the  Emperor  would  make  peace  with  the 
Elector  if  the  Elector  kept  free  from  alliances. 

On  the  15th  the  Emperor  arrives  in  Augsburg,  and  in- 
terviews the  Protestants  together  at  night,  after  the  cere- 
monies. On  the  same  day  the  Elector  admits  the  other 
Lutheran  Estates  to  the  Confession.  Next  morning  the 
Protestants  fail  to  participate  in  the  procession  of  Corpus 
Christi,  while  Melanchthon  comes  into  touch  with  Schep- 
per,  the  Emperor's  Secretary.  On  the  next  day  (17th)  the 
Elector  and  Princes  give  reasons  to  the  Emperor  why  they 
cannot  stop  the  Protestant  preaching.  This  creates  a  tur- 
moil among  the  Princes,  but  on  the  18th  the  Protestants 
agree  to  stop  preaching  temporarily,  if  the  Romanists  do 
likewise.  On  the  17th  Valdes,  the  Spanish  Secretary,  who 
has  been  interviewed  by  Melanchthon,  brings  Melanch- 
thon's  proposal  to  the  Emperor,  and  on  the  next  day  Val- 
des, authorized  by  the  Emperor  and  Campeggius,  asked 
Melanchthon  to  present  the  points  of  controversy  in  brief- 
est form  for  private  settlement. 

On  Sunday  (19th),  there  is  no  preaching.  The  Nurem- 
bergers  write  that  Melanchthon  reports  that  the  contro- 
versy may  be  narrowed  down  to  a  few  points.  On  the  20th, 
the  Diet  opens  with  the  Elector  bearing  the  sword  before 
the  Emperor,  and  the  Landgrave  standing  in  the  gallery. 
On  the  21st,  Melanchthon's  plan  for  settlement"  is 
broached  to  the  Elector  and  is  rejected,  and  the  work  of 
revising  and  completing  the  Confession  is  hurriedly  begun. 
The  next  day  (22d),  the  Emperor  orders  the  Elector  to 
have  his  Confession  ready  by  Friday.  On  the  day  follow- 
ing (23d) ,  the  Confession  is  finally  read,  the  text  fixed,  and 


"  Krauth  know  of  the  interview  between  Melanchthon  and  Valdes.  but 
flearly  regards  the  initiative  as  having  been  taken  by  the  Roman  Secretary, 
and  obviously  does  not  regard  the  proposition  as  a  substitute  for  the  Confes- 
sion. After  quoting  what  the  Nuremberg  legates  wrote  home  on  June  2 1st, 
he  says,  "It  Is  evident  that  the  point  involved  in  the  conference  between 
Valdesius  and  Melanchthon  was  that  of  the  abuses  to  be  corrected,  and  not 
the  question  of  doctrine."  Chronicle  of  the  Angshurg  Confesfiion,  pp.  44,  45. 
Krauth's  high  estimate  of  Melanchthon  and  his  loyalty  to  Philip  are  shown 
here.  But  comp.  Kolde.  Tschackert  and  other  recent  writers.  "The  Confes- 
sional Hisiorn"  leaves  this  point  an  open  question. 


INTEODUCTION  xcix 

it  is  signed.  On  Friday  (24th),  the  Protestants  are 
put  off,  and  the  Emperor  attempts  to  suppress  the  Confes- 
sion. On  Saturday  (25th),  the  Confession  is  presented 
and  read. 

after  tlje  ©eliberp  oi  tfjc  Confesfsiion 

'  It  is  quite  true  that  the  Reformers  at  Augsburg  strongly 
desired  peace,  and  not  war,  and  that  all  the  theologians 
from  Luther  down  considered  it  necessary  to  use  every  ef- 
fort to  avoid  a  breach  with  the  Emperor.  But  a  breach 
with  the  Papacy  or  with  the  Church,  for  conscience'  sake, 
is  not  the  same  thing  in  their  mind  as  a  breach  with  the 
Emperor.  The  desire  of  the  reformers  was  to  continue 
in  the  old  ecclesiastical  order  if  possible,  so  long  as  the 
pure  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God  was  permitted  in  their 
dominions,  and  so  long  as  their  conscience  was  not  injured 
as  to  ecclesiastical  abuses.  It  was  a  very  difficult  matter  to 
find  and  locate  this  exact  point  practically  as  a  modus 
Vivendi,  but,  we  believe  that,  if  Melanchthon  be  an  ex- 
ception, at  no  time  were  there  any  of  the  leading  reform- 
ers who  were  willing  to  give  up  the  Word  of  God  or  to 
wound  their  consciences  in  order  that  they  might  remain 
within  the  pale  of  the  Roman  Church. 

We  cannot  therefore  help  regarrlinj;:,  as  a  serious  misrepresentation, 
the  statement  that  is  made  in  *"The  Confessioual  History  of  the  Lutheran 
Church"  (p.  140)  in  describing  "the  efforts  at  reconciliation"  at  Augs- 
burg after  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  as  follows :  "The  Protestants 
could  not  brook  the  idea  of  leaving  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  the  thought 
of  being  thrust  out  of  it.  The  Catholics  knew  full  well  what  it  meant  to 
the  Catholic  Church  to  have  the  Protestant  Princes  and  their  people 
separated  from  that  Church.  There  is  no  doubt  that  both  parties  felt 
the  awful  power  of  the  old  dogma  'that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the 
Church.'  " 

We  cannot  believe  that  the  Elector,  so  well  grounded  in  the  Word,  was 
troubled  by  the  dogma,  "There  is  no  salvation  outside  of  the  Church." 
The  facts  do  not  at  all  show  that  Melanchthon  received  instruction  from 
the  Elector  to  make  new  advances  to  Campeggius  and  to  beg  for  harmony. 
Yet  from  this  point  of  view,  of  a  yielding  Electoral  party,  the  whole  issue 
at  Augsburg  is  treated  by  the  author  in  question. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Elector  was  standing,  now.  as  before,  on  the 
original  terms  of  the  Call,  which  proposed  reconciliation,  but  after  a  fair 
hearing  of  both  sides  of  the  case,  that  the  tnith  might  prevail.     This  is 


c  INTKODUCTION 

a  different  position  from  any  willingness  on  his  pai't  to  give  up  the  truth. 
The  letters  written  by  Melanchthou  to  Cardinal  Campeggius  simply  show 
how  far  Melanchthou  was  willing  to  go  in  his  diplomatic  statements  and 
representations  of  the  Protestant  position.  It  was  Melanchthon  who  was 
trying  to  force  the  Protestant  party  into  compromise.  And  when,  ou 
the  Gth  of  July,  he  wrote  a  letter  under  instruction  from  the  Protestant 
Princes  to  Campeggius,  we  may  be  sure  that  he  placed  the  position  of  the 
Protestant  Princes  in  as  favorable  and  conciliatory  a  light  toward  Rome 
as  possible.  The  letter  is  characteristically  Melanchthonian,  but  even  in 
it  the  Protestant  Princes  promise  to  "accept  such  conditions  as  will  pro- 
mote peace  and  concord,  and  as  will  tend  to  retain  the  ecclesiastical  or- 
der" only  "i»  so  far  as  it  can  he  done  without  wounding  their  con- 
sciences." And  they  declai'e  "that  they  by  no  means  wish  the  ecclesias- 
tical order  and  the  lawful  authority  of  the  bishops  to  collapse.""*  If 
this  letter  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  Melanchthon's  other  letter  to  the 
Cardinal,^®  in  which  he  declares  that  he  will  show  fidelity  to  the  Roman 
Church  "to  the  last  breath,"  it  is  clear  how  such  evidence  confirms  the 
unreliability  of  such  a  delineation  of  the  Protestant  powers,  not  the 
confessional  collapse  of  the  powers  themselves. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Elector  stood  throughout  for 
the  Word  of  God,  and  not,  as  we  are  told  by  a  recent  writer, 
for  the  Church. 

The  fundamental  theory  of  The  Confessional  History,  namely  that  the 
entire  Electoral  party's  chief  concern  at  Augsburg  was  to  be  permitted 
to  remain  in  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  Church,  at  almost  any  sacrifice,  is 
wholly  untenable.  The  author  of  The  Confessional  History  seems  to 
have  overlooked,  from  first  to  last,  the  heroic  acts  and  utterances  of  the 
Elector  and  of  the  Margrave.  Consider  the  Elector's  reply  of  May  31st 
to  the  Emperor;  the  Elector's  letter  to  Luther  on  June  4th;  the  Elector's 
refusal  to  kneel  on  June  ]r)th,  at  the  bridge  of  the  I^ech,  or  in  the  Cathe- 
dral that  evening;  the  Elector's  and  Margrave's  persistent  refusal  that 
night  to  celebrate  Corpus  Christi  next  day;  the  Margrave's  exclamation, 
"Before  I  would  deny  my  God  and  His  Gospel,  I  would  have  my  head 
struck  off"  ;  the  answer  of  the  Elector  on  June  17th  ;  the  Elector's  in- 
sistence on  signing  the  Confession,  instead  of  Melanchthon  and  the  theo- 
logians;  Melanchthon's  letter  to  Luther  on  July  27th  in  which  he  de- 
clares that  "Those  who  are  here  help  me  little,"  and  his  letter  to  Luther 
of  August  r>th,  in  which  he  severely  blames  the  Princes  for  their  apathy 
toward  his  proposed  peace  negotiations. 

As  to  Luther's  position  on  this  point,  we  may  cite  his  unwillingness  to 
accept  the  Emperor  as  judge  in  his  letter  of  July  1st  and  Gth;  his  letter 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Mentz,  July  Gth,  "They  would  rather  endure  hell 


^r.  R.  IT.  p.  171. 
"/b.  TT,  p.  168. 


INTKODUCTION  ci 

itself  than  yield  to  us" ;  his  k>tter  to  Melanchthon  of  July  9th,  "They 
have  a  sad  finale  to  look  to,  we  a  joyous  one.  Not  indeed  that  unison  in 
doctrine  will  ever  be  restored,  for  how  can  any  one  hope  that  Belial  will 
come  into  concord  with  Christ."  We  cite  also  the  strong  later  letters  of 
Luther.  In  this  connection  additional  facts  should  be  taken  into  account, 
viz. :  the  Explanation  of  the  Protesting  Estates  that  no  More  Articles 
will  be  Handed  in,  of  July  10th,  in  which  they  demand  that  the  Emperor 
live  up  to  his  Call ;  the  refusal  of  the  Protestants  to  accept  the  Em- 
peror's decision  that  they  do  not  confute  the  Confutation;  also  Melanch- 
thon's  letter  to  Luther  of  July  27th,  and  the  one  of  August  Gth.^" 

At  this  particular  time  the  Elector  was  looking,  by  rea- 
son of  the  great  change  and  the  kindly  conduct  in  the 
Emperor,  for  a  fair  treatment  of  the  Protestant  case  on  the 
basis  of  the  Call.  This  would  naturally  dispose  him  and 
his  side  toward  conciliation,  and  if  they  already  had  on 
any  point  temporarily  gone  further,  in  yielding  the  evan- 
gelical principle,  than  they  were  conscious  of,  the  yielding 
was  temporary,  and  when  they  became  conscious  of  the  is- 
sues involved,  the  reaction  was  all  the  sharper.  And  this,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Melanchthon  already  had  done  all  in 
his  power,  both  in  handling  the  case  with  the  Emperor  and 
the  Cardinal  and,  also  in  his  attitude  toward  the  Elec- 
tor and  the  Protestant  party  to  bring  about  a  return  to 
Rome  even  at  a  sacrifice  of  the  essential  principle  of  the 
Reformation. 

We  point,  further,  to  the  reply  of  the  Elector  to  the  Emperor  on  July 
21st,  in  which  he  personally  recognized  the  difference  between  the  teach- 
ing in  God's  Word  and  that  of  Rome,  and  re-confessed,  here  and  now, 
all  the  articles  of  the  Confession.  We  also  point  to  the  scene  prior  to 
the  selection  of  the  so-called  "Committee  of  Sixteen."  which  scene  is  not 
brought  out  properly  in  "The  Confensional  History.'^  The  Protestants' 
side  of  what  took  place  on  the  afternoon  of  August  7th  is  not  sketched 
in  real  proportion,"  although  the  Catholic  reply  is  given  in  large  outline. 

"The  Confessional  History"  lays  much  stress  on  the  "Explanation." 
under  the  lead  of  Melanchthon.  of  August  ISth.  and  raises  the  question 
whether  this  was  the  true  and  intended  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. It  says,  "There  is  the  Declaration.  It  speaks  for  itself.  It 
shows  conclusively  that  the  Protestant  seven  were  willing  to  make  peace 
on  terms  that  must  prove  humiliating  to  themselves  and  disastrous  to  their 
cause."     It  devotes  about  seven  pages  to  this  "Explanation,"  and  says  at 


**  v.  The  Confessional  Principle,  footnote  on  p.  488. 
«  C  R.  II,  p.  266. 


cii  INTRODUCTION 

the  close,  "The  fact  is,  the  Protestants,  as  we  shall  hereafter  learn,  had 
almost  completely  lost  their  courage,  and  seemed  willing — that  is  the 
Saxons  and  Margravians — to  purchase  peace  at  almost  any  price."  But 
it  fails  to  speak  of  the  storm  of  dissent  which  arose  outside  the  committee 
against  Melanchthon's  program  of  concession. 

One  cannot  but  feel  surprise  at  the  inclusion  of  the  Elector  and  the 
whole  Saxon  party,  as  the  responsible  movers,  in  Melanchthon's  treach- 
erous compromise,  when,  in  The  Confessional  History,  on  p.  167.  a 
vital  admission  as  to  the  Elector's  position,  as  over  against  Melanchthou, 
is  made  respecting  the  authorship  of  the  report  of  Melanchthon  of  Au- 
gust 21st,  as  follows,  "There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  this  Opinion 
was  tcritten  iy  command  of  the  Elector." 

In  conclusion,  as  throwing  light  on  the  idea,  plan  and  course  of  Me- 
lanchthon, we  point  back  to  his  "Rhetorical  Preface"  framed  as  far  back 
as  April  and  found  in  "The  First  Draft."  As  differing  from  Briick  and 
the  Elector,  and  also  the  Landgrave.  Melanchthon  then  already  proposed 
to  make,  and  declared  the  Emperor  to  be,  the  sole  arbiter  in  religion. 
This  Preface  (according  to  ''The  Confessional  History")  evaded  the 
question  of  doctrine  and  laid  all  stress  on  Ohurcli  Uniformity.  This  is 
the  hand  of  Melanchthon  at  that  early  day.  rather  than  that  of  the  Elec- 
tor or  Brii(-k.  "The  Confessional  History"  would  involve  even  Luther  in 
the  plan  of  the  "Rhetorical  Preface."  but  Luther  himself  is  our  witness 
in  his  emphatic  testimony  that  he  had  no  heart  for  such  a  Confession. 

TJie  Confessional  History  explains  Melanchthon's  yield- 
ing in  various  statements,  among  others,  as  follows : 

"He  hated  the  democratic  principles  of  the  Swiss  with  a  iierfect 
hatred.   .    .    . 

"Success  on  the  part  of  Philip,  and  of  the  Swiss,  would  utterly  defeat 
the  purpose  and  the  desire  of  his  party  to  obtain  and  to  enjoy  their  rights 
within  the  Church.  .   .   . 

"He  stood  almost  with  the  devotion  of  a  martyr,  by  the  Empire  and 
by  the  Church.   .    .    . 

"Heuce  Melanchthon's  concessions  at  Augsburg — in  the  Confession,  in 
his  correspondence  with  Campeggius,  in  the  peace  negotiations — did  not 
proceed  from  personal  weakness,  but  from  an  honest  desire  to  serve  his 
party,  to  carry  out  their  determination  to  remain  in  the  Church,  to  vindi- 
cate the  Lutherans  from  identification  with  the  Zwinglians  and  the 
Anabaptists,  and  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
of  the  German  Nation." 

The  author  of  "The  Confessional  History"  does  not  seem 
to  see  that  he  has  here  set  down  the  case  against  Melanch- 
thon in  a  nutshell.  The  motives  which  he  attributes  to 
Melanchthon  are  partly  personal,  largely  political,  in  part 


INTEODUCTION  ciii 

ecclesiastical,  and  in  every  instance  partisan.  To  maintain, 
to  uphold,  to  vindicate,  to  confess,  the  pure  Word  of  God, 
though  the  heavens  fall,  was  not  part  of  his  plan. 

The  author's  quotation  from  Baumgarten's  Geschichte  Karls  V.,  3, 
p.  28,  is  a  condemnation  of  the  main  position  of  The  Confessional  History 
respecting  Melanclithou  :  "War  die  Konfession,  welche  der  Kurfiirst  von 
Sachsen  in  seiuem  und  seiner  lutherischen  Glaubensgonossen  Namen  am 
25.  Juni  vor  Kaiser  und  Reich  verh\sen  liess,  im  Sinne  ausserster  An- 
nahrung  an  die  aite  Kirche  und  schroffster  Absonderung  von  den  Zvviug- 
lischen  gehalten,  so  ging  Melanchthon  in  den  spiltcr  gefiihrten  Verhand- 
lungen  noch  sehr  weit  iiber  diese  Liuie  hiuaus." 

^ici)atktxVi  Hattit  Wovk 

In  the  most  recent  work  treating  the  subject,  Tschackert 
upholds  the  distinction  we  draw  between  the  method  and 
views  of  Melanchthon  and  the  position  of  the  Electoral 
party.    Tschackert  says  •/' 

"Today  it  is  almost  a  part  of  that  which  is  incomprehensible  in  Melanch- 
thon's  character,  that  he  regarded  the  Confession,  which  his  judgment, 
flt  best,  must  have  looked  at  as  an  official  state  document  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Estates,  which  had  been  read  and  delivered  in  solemn  session, 
which  was  an  important  part  of  German  civil  and  church  history,  as 
his  private  writing." 

"It  was  thus  regarded  by  hira  imnnHJiately  after  the  Diet  and  during  his 
long  life,  and  changed  it  as  often  as  he  issued  it  in  print.  Attempts  are 
made  to  excuse  this:  it  is  said  that  Melanchthon  acted  in  the  interest  of 
a  scientific  teaching,  in  order  to  render  the  expressions  more  clear  or 
more  exact.  Further  it  is  said  that  the  Evangelical  Estates  and  the 
theologians  took  no  offense  at  Melanchthon's  changes,  for  decades. 

"Both  of  these  facts  may  be  correct,  but  they  do  not  alter  the  fact,  that 
the  editor-in-chief  of  the  Confession  had  no  understanding  of  the  histori- 
cal importance  of  this  official  state  document  of  the  Evangelical  Estates. 
That,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Elector  John  Frederick  regarded  the  Con- 
fession as  his  and  that  of  the  other  signatories,  is  shown  by  his  remon- 
strance to  Briick  of  May  5th,  1537." 

i;f)e  (01b  ©uegtion  of  ^utfjorfifjip 

As  to  the  much-discussed  question,  treated  in  several 
different  places  in  this  volume  also,  of  the  authorship  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  we  have  no  exception  to  take  to  the 
main  estimate  of  "TJie  Confessional  History." 


"Die  EntftteluiiKj  dcr  hifh.  u.  dcr  Rcf.  Kirchenlehre,  11>10,  p.  288. 
*'  Koldc.  r.  Footnote  21.  p.  529,  of  the  present  volume,  takes  a  less  strict 
view  — T.  E.  S. 


civ  INTEODUCTION 

It  aflSrms  that  Melanchthon's  "confessional  restatement  of  the  chief 
doctrines  of  Christianity  was  something  .  .  .  distinctly  new  in  the  life 
and  history  of  the  German  people.  ...  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  taken  as  a  whole,  and  as  a  conception,  is  vastly 
different  from  the  Schwabach  Articles,  vastly  different  from  any  creed 
or  confession  of  faith  that  had  previously  existed  or  that  has  since  come 
into  existence,  vastly  different  from  anything  that  had  been  written  by 
I.uther,  or  previously  by  Melanchthon.""  "As  Luther's  classic  monument 
is  the  Small  Catechism,  so  Melanchthon's  classic  monument  is  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  In  the  erection  of  that  monument  he  was  not  an  editor, 
a  translator,  a  compiler,  but  an  author."     (P-  69.)-'=' 

After  endorsing  The  ConfessioTval  History  on  this  point, 
it  however  is  still  pertinent  to  inquire  in  how  far  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Testimony  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
especially  all  that  which  has  made  the  Confession  the  bul- 
wark of  our  Faith  today,  emanates  from  Melanchthon.  Can 
we  say,  from  what  we  know  of  Melanchthon's  ideas  in 
the  First  Draft  of  the  Confession,  and  at  Augsburg  during 
the  months  of  June,  July  and  August,  and  in  later  years, 
that  w'hat  Luther  testified  to  in  private  form  in  the  nailing 
of  the  Theses,  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  and  what  the  Electors 
stood  for  in  later  Diets,  including  the  one  at  Spires,  and 
what  came  to  final  expression  at  Augsburg,  was  the  work 
of  Melanchthon? 

Tschackert,  writing  later  than  The  Confessional  History, 


"  p.  69. 


"  Rut  there  is  abundant  room  for  varying  opinions,  on  such  a  subject,  fle- 
pending  on  thie  point  of  view  from  whicti  a  writer  approaches  the  problem, 
and  we  do  not  believe  that  the  cause  of  objective  historical  truth  is  furthered 
by  allusions  to  "some  dogmaticians,  or  those  who  have  reflected  the  dogmatic 
temper,  or  those  who  have  borrowed  the  Flacianist  calumniations,  or  those 
who  have  superficially  examined  the  facts"  ;  nor  by  the  endorsement  Ot 
Weber's  sarcastic  disparagement  of  "the  illustrious  man  of  God.  Herr  Luther," 
and  of  "the  Bergic  Form  of  Concord"  ;  nor  by  the  endorsement  of  Planck's 
"independence  of  judgment"  and  aulhoritativeness  in  opinion:  nor  by  the 
one-sided  rhetoric  of  The  Coufcssional  Ilistori/'s  own  summation  :  "It  became 
the  fashion  in  places  to  disparage  Melanchthon  in  the  Church  which  he  had 
helped  to  create,  and  to  name  Luther  the  author  of  the  matter  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to  call  Melanchthon  the  author  of  its 
form,  of  its  rhetoric,  of  its  sfi/lr.  That  is,  the  profound  scholar,  the  accom- 
plished writer,  the  learned  theologian,  the  trusted  counsellor  of  Princes  did 
the  worl<  of  an  amanuensis  at  Augsburg !  The  Prot6n  Pseudos  once  started, 
it  suited  the  taste  and  temper  of  a  dogmatic  age  to  keep  it  moving,  though 
there  have  always  been  those  who  had  the  manly  courage  to  protest  against 
the  great  injustice." — The  Confessional  History,  pp.  69-73. 


INTRODUCTION  cv 

and  citing  it  in  his  work,  has  given  the  right  estimate,  as 
follows : 

"The  day  after  the  delivery  of  the  Confession  a  copy  of  it  was  sent  by 
Melanchthon  to  Luther,  who  only  now  learned  to  know  its  final  form. 
But  in  content  it  was  built  out  of  his  thought  material,  so  that  he  on 
occasion  could  even  describe  it  as  his  confession.  Luther  testified  to 
Melanchthon  his  agreement  to  the  confession,  but  was  of  the  opinion 
that  one  dare  not  yield  any  further  to  the  opponent.  On  the  Gth  of  July 
he  expressed  his  joy  that  he  has  lived  to  this  hour.  It  is  true  that  when 
new  negotiations  for  reconciliation  were  entered  into  with  the  opposite 
side  in  Augsburg,  he,  on  the  2r)th  of  July,  said  of  the  soft-stepping 
Apology  that  it  had  kept  silent  concerning  certain  articles,  concerning 
purgatory,  worship  of  the  saints,  and  most  of  all  'the  antichrist,  the 
pope.'  But  at  the  close  of  the  Diet  he  nevertheless  gave  Melanchthon  and 
his  co-workers,  on  the  16th  of  September,  the  praise:  'Christum  confess! 
estis,  pacem  obtulistis^  Caesari  oboedistis,  injurias  tolerastis,  blasphemiis 
saturati  estis  nee  malum  pro  malo  reddidistis ;  summn,  opus  sanctum  Dei, 
ut  sanctos  decet,  digne  tractastis.'  '"*" 

In  another  place,  Tschackert,  declaring  that  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apology  were 
composed  by  Melanchthon,  does  not  interfere  with  the  fact 
that  the  development  of  the  Confession  of  our  Church  was 
Lutheran,  gives  as  the  reason  for  this  that  "in  bofh  writ- 
ings Melanchthon  works  with  Luther's  thought-material.'"' 
This  is  a  fundamental  conclusion  with  Tschackert. 

He  speaks  of  it  again  on  p.  275,  and  once  again  on  p.  304.  He  says : 
"The  Augsburg  Confession  arose  out  of  Luther's  thoughts.  Freely  speak- 
ing, the  real  period  of  the  formation  of  the  Symbols  of  Lutheran 
Protestantism  lies  between  l.")29  and  1537;  for  in  this  time  the 
original  Luther  confessional  writings  arose,  both  catechisms  out  of  Luth- 
er's pen,  the  Augsburg  Confession  out  of  Luther's  thoughts,  but  com- 
posed by  Melanchthon,  to  which  Melanchthon  in  his  Apology  to  the  same 
Rddeda  theological  treatise  ( Lehrschrift)  :  at  last  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
also  composed  by  Luther."^* 

"An  investigation  of  the  doctrinal  content  of  the  Lutheran  confes- 
sions furnishes  the  result  that  as  to  the  main  matter  it  has  flowed  fortli 
from  the  fundamental  thought  of  Luther.  .  .  .  The  Lutheran  Church 
doctrine  has  flowed  from  the  spirit  of  Luther,  as  he  indeed  has  also  com- 
posed both  catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  but  likewise  has 
termed  the  Augustana  'his,'  while  Melanchthon  furnished  the  theological 


*^  Die  Enl^tehmuj  der  lutherischen  nnd  cler  reformiertcn  Kirchenlehre.  p.  286. 
^^p.  274. 
*^p.  275. 


cvi  INTEODFCTION 

defense  of  the  same  in  the  Apology  with  Luther's  thought-material.  In 
content  therefore  the  Lutheran  Church  doctrine  remains  Luthei-'s  cre- 
ation."*' 

The  estimate  well  combines  and  covers  Melanchthon's 
own  statements  as  given  partially  at  different  times. 

On  June  27th,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther,  "Res  sunt  antea  deliber- 
atae  ut  scis.  sed  semper  aliter  in  acie  se  dant  qiiam  antae  sunt  deliber- 
alae."^" 

On  August  27th,  he  wrote  to  Camerarius,  "Nihil  adhuc  concessimus 
adversariis  praeter  ea,  quae  Lutherus  censiiit  esse  reddenda,  re  bene  ac 
diligenter  deliberata  ante  conventum."^'  And  his  final  statement  a.s  to  his 
work  is  as  follows :  "Nil  sumpsi  mihi ;  praesentibus  principibus  et  aliis 
giibernatoribus  et  concionatoribus  disputatum  est  oi'dine  de  singulis  sen- 
(ontiis." 

^\)t  Bebelopment  of  tf)e  ICutl^eran  ConfesiSion 

Technically,  the  Apolog>"  was  a  controversion  of  the 
Confutation  of  the  Augustana.  Substantially,  it  was  the 
Augustana's  confirmation.  Made  known  to  the  laity  in  the 
devotional  German  of  Jonas,  it  was  set  alongside  the 
Augsburg  Confession  by  the  Evangelical  Estates  at 
Schweinfurt  in  1532,  as  "a  Protection  and  Explanation  of 
the  Confession.'"'  Thenceforward,  these  two  works  were 
counted  as  the  official  confessions  of  the  Evangelical 
Church  and  their  recognition  was  made  a  condition  for 
membership  in  the  Schmalkald  Lreague.  Both  were  con- 
fessed in  the  Wittenberg  Concord  of  1536  and  at  Schmal- 
kald in  1537." 

Melanchthon  worked  continuously  at  the  improvement  of 
the  text  of  the  Augustana.  His  enlargements  of  1533, 
especially  in  Articles  IV,  V,  VI,  XII,  XV,  and  XX,  in 
which  he  adopted  explanatory  thoughts  out  of  the  Apology 
in  parenetic  interests,  and  even  the  changes  in  Article 
XVIII  on  Free  Will,  which  is  not  to  be  interpreted  syner- 
gistically  so  much  in  itself  as  in  its  comparison  with  the 


<»p.  304. 

^»  C.  R.  II.  p.  146. 

"Jb.  II.  p.  334. 

^^  Cp.  O.  AVinkelniann,  Drr  fiehmalkaUli>iche  Bund,  etc.,  Stra.ssburg,  1892, 
p.  197.  p.  304  ff. 

"  The  changes  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Apology  are  not  of  the  character 
of  a  change  in  the  teaching  to  the  same  extent  as  they  are  in  the  Augustana. 
Cp.  TKchnchcrf.   p.  2!)0. 


INTEODUCTION  cvii 

changed  mode  of  treatment  in  the  Latin  editions  of  the 
Loci  (1535  and  later),  do  not  deflect  the  Confession  so 
seriously,  as  the  change  in  the  tenth  Article  on  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  omission  of  the  vere  et  substantialiter  adesse 
and  the  reprobatio,  just  at  the  time  when  Melanchthon  was 
drawing  closer  to  Bucer,  and  in  conjunction  with  the  Wit- 
tenberg Concord  of  1536,  and  the  censures  of  the  Elector 
John  Frederick  of  1537,  justify  us,  as  Kolde  says,  in  com- 
ing to  the  conclusion  that  in  view  of  his  gradually  differing 
interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  Melanchthon  made  the 
change  in  the  Confession  in  order  to  leave  the  way  open  for 
union  with  the  Highlanders. 

Luther's  peculiar  situation  was  such  that  he  could  not 
bring  himself  to  a  public  disagreement  with  Melanchthon, 
and  it  was  only  after  Luther's  death,  under  the  influence  of 
the  doctrinal  controversies,  when,  under  the  attacks  of  the 
Gnesio-Lutherans,  the  edition  of  1540  became  a  fortunate 
symbol  for  the  Melanchthonians,  and  later  became  such 
even  to  the  Crypto-Calvinists,  that  the  Variata  fell  into 
disrepute  in  the  eyes  of  good  Lutherans.  It  was  this  dis- 
repute that  awakened  in  the  confessors  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord the  intense  desire  to  go  back  to  the  original  text. 

The  questiou  has  been  raised  by  Kohle  and  others  as  to  whether  the  in- 
structions given  to  the  theologians  at  Schmalliald  in  1537.  with  respect  to 
revising  the  Augustaua,  may  not  have  been  a  precedent  which  Melanch- 
thon followed  three  years  later  in  his  publishing  the  Variata.  We  doubt 
whether  it  is  possible  to  give  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  view.  In  the 
first  place  the  question  arises  as  to  how  far  Melanchthon  himself  may 
not  have  been  the  source  of  the  idea  to  revise,  at  Schmalkald  already  in 
l."».S.">,  and,  later,  in  1537.  In  the  second  place  the  question  presents  itself 
as  to  whether  such  a  revision  would  have  been  made  by  actual  change 
in  the  text  of  the  document  itself,  and  not  by  way  of  appendix  or  addi- 
tional confession.  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  fairly  revising  such  an  his- 
torical and  official  document  may  have  been  itself  the  strongest  reason 
why  it  was  not  actually  undertaken.  In  the  I  bird  place,  if  such  a  re- 
vision had  occurred,  on  order  of  the  estates,  and  in  this  public  way,  it 
would,  by  express  command,  not  have  touched  the  substance  of  the  Con- 
fession, and  it  would  have  been  made  publicly  and  officially  by  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  powei-s  who  originally  signed  the  Confession.  In  both 
these  respects,  it  would  have  dififered  from  Melanchthon's  revision  of 
1-540,  and  probably  would  have  constituted  no  precedent  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Variata. 


cviii  INTEODFCTION 

That  the  Elector  of  Saxony  was  opposed  at  this  very  time  to  the 
changes,  can  be  seen  from  the  instructions  that  he  gave  to  Briick  in  asls- 
ing  that  Luther's  Articles  should  be  discussed  by  the  other  Wittenberg 
theologians,  and  that  they  should  state  their  view  frankly,  and  not  merely 
seem  to  agree,  without  opening  their  heart  fully  at  this  time,  and  then 
afterwards  at  another  time,  teach  something  different;  "as  had  already 
happened  on  the  part  of  several  of  them  in  several  instances  before  this." 
On  this  Kostlin  remarks'**  that  it  produces  the  impression  that  the  Elec- 
tor had  already  had  his  attention  drawn  to  the  peculiar  attitude  of 
Melanchthon  in  the  question  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Tschackert's  account 
of  the  affair  is  as  follows : 

"At  the  convention  at  Schmalkald  in  February,  1537,  the  proceedings 
ran  counter  to  the  intentions  of  the  Saxon  Elector.  The  Evangelical 
I'rinces  and  Estates  accompanied  by  numerous  theologians  had  arrived. 
Rut  before  they  had  reached  a  conclusion  concerning  the  question  as  to 
the  preparation  for  the  Council,  the  theologians  received  the  commission 
to  reach  an  understanding  concerning  the  doctrine,  so  that  in  case  of  a 
possible  attendance  of  the  Council  they  would  know  what  they  had  to 
stand  for.  Of  a  conclusive  acceptance  of  the  articles  of  Luther  there  was 
no  thought  on  the  part  of  the  Estates;  Melanchthon  vho  had  hccn  ad- 
vised'''' on  this  point  hy  the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  prevented  it,  be- 
cause the  article  coneerninf/  the  Lord's  Supper  did  not  suit  him.  Hence  the 
theologians  now  received  the  commission,  'die  Augsb.  Konfession  zu  iiber- 
sehen,  nichts  wider  deren  Inhalt  und  Substanz,  auch  der  Konkordie  (der 
Wittenberger  von  ir^SO)  zu  Jindern,  allein  das  Papsttum  herauszustreichen, 
das  vormals  auf  dem  Reichstage  der  Kais.  Maj.  zu  untertanigem  Gefallen 
und  aus  Ursachen  unterlassen,'  etc.°*  (Kolde,  Analecta  Lutherana  1883, 
p.  207.)  Accordingly  the  theologians  were  first  of  all  to  go  through  the 
Augustana,  second,  to  furnish  an  additional  article,  lacking  there,  on  the 
papacy.  The  Augustana  and  the  Apology  again  met  approval  and  were 
signed  by  them.  Luther  did  not  participate  because  he  was  ill  in  bed."" 

Luther  was  not  thus  ill  from  the  start,  at  Schmalkald.  On  February 
9th  he  wrote  to  Ju.stus  .Jonas  that  the  princes  were  in  secret  deliberations, 
and  that  he  had  nothing  to  do.  He  could  neither  know  nor  guess  what 
was  being  transacted  nor  what  would  happen.  On  the  14th  he  wrote 
to  Justus  Jonas,  "It  is  now  the  eighth  day  on  which  we  are  being  de- 


'-*  II,  p.  387. 

"'However  Cp.  Footnote  17.  p.  T>2~,  and  Footnote  20,  p.  528.  for  Kolde'9 
opinion  on  this  point.      (Tlie  italics  in  tlie  text  are  ours.) 

B«  "Nichts  wider  deren  Inhalt  und  substanz  auoh  der  concordy  endern.  allein 
das  babstum  heniss  zu  strichen,  des  vormals  uflf  dem  richsdog  dor  key. 
Mt.  zu  undortbenigem  gefallen  und  uss  ursaehen  underlossen." — Report  of  the 
Strassbui-g  Theologians,  Analecta  Lutherana,  p.  203. 

"  Tsehackcrt.  p.  300. 


INTEODUCTION  cix 

tained  here,  or  are  being  kept  in  suspense.  We  are  nothing  but  an  idle 
gathering.  The  princes  and  estates  are  deliberating  concerning  other 
matters  than  we  thought  of,  and  without  us.  Christ  give  their  delibera- 
tions and  their  undertakings  success."  So  that,  at  Schmalkald,  Melanch- 
thon  was  active,  but  Luther  was  inactive.  He  always  remained  in  ignor- 
ance of  the  fact  that  his  articles  were  not  officially  adopted  by  the  con- 
vention. The  amplification  he  made  later  on  in  these  articles  constitutes 
the  strongest  formal  justification  for  similar  amplification  on  the  part 
of  Melanchthon.  But  there  is  a  great  difference,  as  to  revision,  between 
these  Schmalkald  Articles  and  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Luther  did  not 
change  the  substance  of  them ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  Articles 
themselves  were  never  actually  brought  before  a  Diet  or  General  Council 
for  adoption.'** 

Up  to  this  point  at  least,  the  testimony  of  Tschackert  is 
confirmatory  of  the  position  maintained  in  this  book. 
Tschackert  goes  so  far  as  to  declare,  "One  may  say  a  hun- 
dred times,  in  scientific  circles,  that  the  Symbols  must  be 
understood  in  a  purely  historical  sense — and  this  we  also 
are  trying  to  do  here — nevertheless  the  fact  remains,  that 
the  Symbols  in  Lutheran  Protestantism  have  gained  an 
entirely  unique  significance:  they  represent  the  genuine 
Lutheran  Church  cloctHne.  .  .  .  We  therefore  treat  the 
fixation  of  the  Lutheran  fundamental  thoughts  in  the  genu- 
ine Lutheran  confessional  writings.'"' 

But  Tschackert  differs  from  us  in  this,  that  he  confines 
the  genuine  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the 
writings  accepted  in  the  life-time  of  Luther.  There  is 
something  to  be  said  for  this  position,  yet  on  the  whole  it  is 
not  well  grounded.  As  a  matter  of  historical  fact  one 
cannot  circumscribe  the  crystallization  of  the  principle  of 
a  new  movement  to  the  life-time  of  its  founder.  Time  is 
needed  to  settle  the  process.  As  a  matter  of  precedent,  not 
one  of  the  oecumenical  creeds  could  abide  such  a  test. 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  grave  and  ascended  into  heaven 


M  "Ho  has  prefixed  a  long  preface  to  the  manuscript  and  has  enlarged  tlie 
text  itself  at  various  places,  but  without  altering  the  real  content  and  tenor 
of  the  whole.     He  did  the  same  in  the  edition  of  1543." — Tschackert,  p.  302. 

"The  Book  of  Concord,  when  it  took  the  Schmalkald  Articles  into  the  line 
of  Lutheran  confessional  writings,  only  witnessed  to  a  situation  of  fact  that 
was  already  existing." — lb.  p.  302. 

5' p.  275. 


ex  INTKODUCTION 

long  before  the  Apostles'  Creed  oame  into  being.  Finally,  as 
a  matter  of  principle,  the  right  of  the  Christian  Church, 
not  to  alter  the  old,  but  to  confirm  the  old  by  the  addition 
of  new  Confessional  testimony,  at  any  time  in  the  future 
when  this  might  become  necessary,  though  the  right  be 
rarely  exercised,  must  be  kept  open.  Neither  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  nor  a  Twentieth  Century  Confession  could 
legitimately  be  shut  out  from  a  genuine  Confessional  stand- 
ing in  the  Church  on  the  ground  advanced  by  Tschackert. 
This  is  the  point,  says  Seeberg,  whether  there  is  a  con- 
tinuity in  the  teachings  of  all  our  Confessions ;  and  whether 
we  become  conscious  of  an  inner  connection  of  the  religious 
tendencies  of  the  Formula  with  our  own  faith.  "If  this  is 
the  case,  the  verdict  of  the  abiding  value  of  the  Bekennt- 
nisnorm  will  be  apparent  even  for  our  day.  The  Lutheran 
.  .  must  not  conceal  his  positive  attitude  toward  the 
last  Confession  of  his  Church.'"" 

tEJje  l^ariationg  of  tfje  ^ugfiifaurg  Confesisiion 

There  remains,  in  connection  with  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, one  further  topic  to  be  touched.  We  cannot,  without 
danger  of  being  misunderstood,  pass  over  the  confessional 
bearing  of  the  changes  introduced  by  Melanchthon  into  the 
various  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  state- 
ments of  "The  Confessional  History,"  with  their  lack  of  the 
historic  sense,  and  their  subtlety  in  dogmatic  statement, 
would,  if  they  were  correct,  undermine  the  stability  of  the 
Augsburg,  and  every  other  Christian  Confession.  Against 
these  statements  are  Kolde,  Tschackert,  and  even  Weber, 
so  far  as  the  Latin  Editio  Princeps  is  concerned. 

Among  the  statements  made  by  "The  Confessional  His- 
tory,"  we  select  the  following : 

"The  editio  princeps  ...  is  the  pi'ivate  work  of  Melanchthon."— 
The  Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  p.  214. 

"If  one  compares  the  editio  princeps  with  Prof.  Tschackert's  Critical 
Edition,  he  cannot  resist  the  conclusion  that  he  has  here  an  altered 
Augsburg  Confession." — 76.  p.  216. 


'  Herzog-Haiirk  linil  EncycJopaedie 


INTKODUCTION  cxi 

"Melanchthou's  German  editio  princeps  is  very  much  varied. ' — 
lb.  p.  217. 

"In  all  the  qualities  named  above,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these  Ger- 
man Variatae  greatly  surpass  the  editio  princeps." — lb.  p.  224. 

*■  'That  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession'  is  not  known  to  exist 
anywhere  in  the  world." — lb.  p.  230. 

"The  Lutheran  doctrine  has  not  been  corrupted  in  the  Variatae,  but  it 
has  been  clarified,  amplified  in  statement,  fortified  by  argument,  rendered 
more  decidedly  Protestant,  and  more  distinctively  Lutheran." — lb.  p.  231. 

"Such  a  confession  [the  editio  princeps]  could  not  have  formed  the 
fundamentum  of  a  Protestant  Church,  but  rather  a  convenient  bridge  for 
crossing  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber.  Thanks  to  Melanchthon !  The 
deficiencies  and  ambiguities  that  every  theologian  encounters  in  the 
editio  princeps.  to  say  nothing  of  the  'Invariata,'  are  removed  by  the  later 
Variatae,  which,  for  almost  fifty  years,  supplanted  the  editio  princeps, 
and  helped  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to 
distinguish  the  Lutheran  doctrine." — lb.  p.  231. 

"The  thanks  of  the  entire  Church  are  due  to  Melanchthon  for  his 
Variatae.  He  represents  progress-  and  adaptation  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  ;  and  in  the  fact  that  Luther  and  his  co-reformers  approved  and 
endorsed  his  changes  and  adaptations,  and  made  them  their  own.  we 
have  the  positive  proof  that  the  authority  of  the  Confession  in  their 
estimation,  was  not  to  be  sought  in  the  letter,  or  in  any  particular  form 
of  words,  but  in  the  content  and  in  the  conception  of  the  doctrine. 

"In  this  form  [editio  princeps]  the  Augsburg  Confe.ssion  has  had  its 
widest  recognition,  but  in  this  form  it  is  not  the  Confessio  Avgustana  In- 
variata,  and  no  intelligent  theologian,  not  blinded  by  prejudice,  would 
claim  for  it  any  such  distinction,   .    .    ." — lb.  p.  232. 

"He  [Luther]  knew  of  and  approved  the  changes  made  by  Melanch- 
thon in  the  Augsburg  Confession."     [The  italics  are  ours.] — lb.  p.  312. 

As  against  the  theory  of  a  Melanchlhonian  private 
authorship,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  quote  Kolde's  remark :" 
"The  fact  that  Melanchthon  does  not  style  himself  the  au- 
thor, as  he  does  in  the  case  of  the  Apology,  shows  that  he 
regarded  the  Augustana  as  an  official  document."" 


•*'  Kolde,  p.  524  in  this  volume. 

«2  Even  Weber  upholds  the  priority  of  the  Latin  quarto  of  1530,  and  calls 
it  the  "Melanchthonische  Ilaiipt-Ausgabe."  His  investigation  maintains  its 
authenticity,  and  he  declares  that  it  remains  'the  most  precious  treasure  or 
the  Evangelical  Church'.  Wober  says,  further  (II.  p.  5)  :  "If  the  editions  are 
to  be  distinguished  from  one  another  without  falling  into  confusion,  it  is 
necessary  to  single  out  the  first  one,  which,  according  to  Melanchthon's  ad- 
missions, was  printed  critically  and  after  a  good  and  trustworthy  copy  from 
the  others,  which  contain  his  further  elaborations  and  elucidations."  Weber 
in  II,  p.  230  says,  "In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  an  easy  thing  to  exhibit  Melanch- 


cxii  INTKODUCTION 

Weber  rightly  emphasizes  the  point  that  Melanchthon 
was  filled  with  the  desire  to  present  the  truths  of  the  Evan- 
gelical doctrine  in  an  ever  more  clear  and  determinate 
way  and  to  preserve  them  from  all  misunderstandings ;  but 
he  fails  to  perceive  two  facts  in  this  connection :  first,  that 
Melanchthon  was  not  doing  this  but  the  opposite,  when  he 
introduced  such  variations  as  approximate  to  the  Ro- 
man doctrine  (Synergism),  and  to  the  Reformed  doctrine 
(Sacramentarianism).  Here  Melanchthon  was  repudiat- 
ing his  own  position  taken  at  Augsburg,  and  thus  was 
contributing  to  confusion  instead  of  to  clearness  in  the 
Evangelical  doctrine.  In  the  second  place,  the  constant 
varying  of  the  terms  of  Evangelical  doctrine,  as  pursued 
continuously  by  Melanchthon,  thwarted  the  very  object  he 
had  in  mind  according  to  Weber,  viz.,  "To  present  the 
truths  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine  more  and  more  deutlich 
and  bestimmt." 

Weber  admits  that  it  is  a  question  whether  it  would  perhaps  not  have 
been  better  if  Melanchthon  had  allowed  the  Confession  to  stand  simply 
according  to  the  letter  and  had  incorporated  his  additions  in  the  Apology. 

Weber  I  p.  59  rightly  says  that  the  question  of  the  original  manuscript 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  never  raised  in  earlier  Reformation  days, 
partly  because  it  was  believed,  and  could  also  rightly  be  believed,  that  Me- 
lanchthon in  his  quarto  edition  of  the  years  1530-31  had  seen  to  a  good 
and  correct  copy  of  the  Latin  and  German  Confession  ;  and  in  part  be- 
cause the  Confession  was  not  at  that  time  looked  upon  as  au  obligating 
symbol  for  tlie  Protestant  Church. 

For  the  critical  value  of  the  first  Quarto  Latin  edition  of 
Melanchthon  Weber  gives  the  reasons :  (1)  That  Melanch- 
thon himself  should  be  believed.  (2)  That  we  would  not 
know  what  archive  copies  to  trust,  without  the  first  edition 
of  Melanchthon..  .  (3)  Lindan  had  the  Latin  original  in  his 
hands  and  collated  with  the  Quarto  of  1531  and  does  not 
speak  of  any  variations,  which  as  a  bitter  enemy  of  the 
Protestants  he  would  surely  have  done  if  he  had  found 
them.     (4)  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  variations  which 


thon's  changes  and  improvements.  I  do  not  mean  the  variations  in  respect 
to  tlie  different  editions,  but  I  mean  the  history  of  the  variations  as  to  the 
mode  of  origin  and  content. — furtlier.  whether  Melanchthon  can  be  excused 
on  this  account  by  thoughtful  people." 


INTEODUCTION  cxiii 

the  Melanchthon  edition  manifests  as  over  against  the  other 
two  were  also  found  in  the  original  writing. 

Weber  says  further  that  Melanchthon's  improved  editions  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  are  nothing  more  than  paraphrases,  or,  if  one  will, 
commentaries  on  the  first  Print. 

In  addition  to  the  judgment  expressed  more  fully  in  the 
body  of  our  book,  we  quote  the  two  most  recent  writers  on 
the  variations,  viz.,Tschackert  and  Neve.  Tschackerf'  says : 
"The  attempt  is  made  to  excuse  this :  Melanchthon  is  said 
to  have  acted  in  the  interests  of  a  better  teaching,  in  order 
to  make  clearer  or  more  exactly  to  explain  the  expressions. 
Again  it  is  said  that  the  Evangelical  Estates  and  the  theolo- 
gians took  no  offense  at  Melanchthon's  changes  for  a  whole 
decade.  Both  of  these  statements  may  be  correct,  but  that 
does  not  change  the  fact  that  the  editor  in  chief  of  the  Con- 
fession had  no  comprehension  of  the  world-historical  im- 
portance of  these  public  documents  of  the  Evangelical  Es- 
tates. That  on  the  other  hand  the  Elector  John  Frederick 
regarded  the  Confession  as  his  and  as  belonging  to  the 
other  subscribers  of  the  Confession,  is  proved  by  his  ad- 
monition to  Briick  of  May  5,  1537." 

To  this  may  be  added  the  judgment  of  Neve:"' 

"We  can,  strictly  speaking,  not  call  the  Editio  Princeps 
an  Invariata,  because  the  edition  also  contains  changes 
from  the  original.  Yet  inasmuch  as  these  changes  are  of  no 
doctrinal  importance,  ive  ivill  be  justified  in  using  that  term 
in  co7itrast  to  an  eclitio7i  which  does  contain  very  significant 
changes.  And  this  distinction  will  never  disappear  from 
the  terminology  of  the  historians  on  this  subject,  nor  will 
the  Lutheran  Church  ever  cease  to  make  that  distinction." 

And  again  :  "In  the  Variata  we  have  the  unconscious,  embryonic  be- 
ginnings of  a  theology  which  in  the  soon  following  Crypto-Calvinistic 
troubles  became  the  fermenting  element,  and  which  in  a  following  age 
received  a  temporary  expression  in  Syncretism,  and  finally  became  per- 
manently   embodied    in    the    Prussian    Union    established    in    1S17.      And 


^Die  Entstehunff  der  luih.   und  der  reformierten  KirchenJchre,  p.   286. 
^*  "Are  we  .Tustiflcd  in  Distinguishing  Between  an  Altered  and  an  Unaltered 
Augustana  as  the  Conf.  of  the  Luth.  Ch.V" — Liith.  Ch.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1911. 

3 


cxiv  INTKODUCTION 

insiguitiiaut  as  the  changes  may  have  appeared  at  first,  in  connection 
v.ith  the  soon  following  aggressive  advances  of  Crypto-Calvinism,  with 
the  Variata  as  its  shibboleth,  this  altered  edition  of  Melanchthon  was 
bound  to  become  discredited  in  the  Lutheran  Church." 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  any  generation  not  to  observe  the 
gradual  development,  in  its  midst,  of  the  seeds  of  evil  from 
day  to  day,  until  the  evil  has  come  to  full  bloom,  and  thus 
it  was  with  the  theologians  of  the  early  Evangelical  church 
and  Melanchthon's  Variata. 

"The  Confessional  History,"  with  dramatic  effect,  sets  a 
Critical  Text  put  together  in  1901  by  Tschackert  from  the 
best  official  manuscripts  in  the  hands  of  the  original  sign- 
ers, against  the  Editio  Princeps,  as  the  real  Invariata,  but 
in  this  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  verdict  of  Kolde 
against  the  certitude  of  Tschackert's  text. 

"The  Confcssionul  History"  exalts  this  "unvrraciulrrfc  Auf/shiirfiificlir, 
Konfcssion  .  .  .  Kritische  Ausgahc  (IfK)!).  constructed  by  Professor 
Tschackert,  and  accepted  by  all  Augsburg  Confession  scholars  as  repro- 
ducing 'the  original  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession'  with  a  high 
degree  of  accuracy  ;  and  consequently  as  discrediting  utterly  the  Textus 
Receptus,  (Jerman  and  Latin,  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  all  the  Me- 
lanchthon. and  all  other  printed  editions.  ...  It  shows,  if  not  verbally 
and  literally,  yet  certainly,  to  a  high  degree  of  accuracy,  tlie  Augsburg 
Confession  as  it  was  read  and  delivered,  June  25,  1.530 ;  and  it  enables 
us  to  settle  forever,  in  its  essential  aspects,  the  hitherto  hazy  and  uncer- 
tain contention  over  the  Confessio  Invariata.  It  shows,  further,  that  no 
edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  official  use  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
today  can  be  claimed  by  its  subscribers  as  'that  first  and  unaltered  Augs- 
hurg  Confession,^  not  even  in  a  technical  sense  as  over  against  the  Latin 
Variata  of  1540,"  etc.— (pp.  210-211). 

As  against  this  we  set  Kolde's  statement:"  "We  do  not 
really  knoiv  the  text  actually  presented,  notwithstanding  all 
the  valuable  attempts  to  determine  it,  by  means  of  critical 
methods,  from  the  extant  oldest  copies." 

On  the  principles  of  the  work  to  which  we  have  taken 
exception,  it  is  difficult  to  discover  great  harm  in  Variata 
texts  of  the  Confession. 

If  the  text  is  variant  as  to  form,  we  are  not  bound  by  the  form ;  if  it 
is  variant  as  to  substance,  the  substance  may  be  an  improvement.  Yet 
the  work,    (perhaps   recalling  Weber),  terms,    (p.  212),   a   German  text 


p.  .524  in  this  volume. 


1 N  T  K  O  D  'J  C  T  1  O  N  cxv 

taken  by  mistake  into  the  Book  of  Concord,  a  text  with  many  minor 
changes  of  no  textual  value,  but  also  of  no  injury  to  the  substance,  "a 
vicious  copy  of  a  German  manuscript" ;  and  Tschackert's  judgment  of 
1901,  '^witJiout  authentic  value,'''  "through  and  through  inaccurate"  is  sev- 
eral times  (p.  224,  233)  repeated;  whereas  Tschackert's  own  statement, 
in  1910,  as  to  this  text,  is : 

"The  Saxon  theologians  acted  in  good  faith,  and  the  Mainz  copy  is  even 
better  indeed  than  Melanchthon's  German  Original  Druck;  but  compared 
with  the  complete  and  trustworthy,  that  is  with  the  original  that  was 
delivered  over  with  the  contemporary  signatures  of  the  signers,  the  Mainz 
text  nevertheless  shows  itself  faulty  in  many  places."  (p.  621)    .    .    . 

"Since  the  greatest  emphasis  was  laid  on  taking  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  into  the  Book  of  Concord,  they  would  surely  have  been  as  glad 
to  use  a  copy  of  the  'Original'  for  the  Latin  text,  as  they  were  to  secure 
cne  for  the  German  text  out  of  the  archives  at  Mainz ;  but  the  imperial 
firchives  contained  no  Latin  manuscript  of  the  Confession,  and  Latin 
original  copies  in  the  possession  of  those  who  signed  were  not  known  at 
that  time.  Therefore  there  was  nothing  else  to  do  but  to  take  Melanch- 
thou's  Editio  princeps,  the  quarto  edition,  which  had  been  printed  in  1530 
and  had  been  issued  in  1531  at  the  same  time  that  the  Latin  Apology 
was.    This  text,  then,  was  accepted  since  no  better  one  was  known."  "^ 

As  to  the  Latin  text,  we  have  not  found,  in  the  work  we 
are  discussing,  any  statement  of  the  real  i^eason  why  the 
Octavo  edition  of  1531  was  used  by  Selnecker. 

On  the  contrary  its  use  is  expressly  atti-ibuted  to  ignorance,  "Proof 
this,"  says  the  author,  "that  the  theologians  of  that  period  knew  very 
little  about  the  different  editions  of  the  Confession  and  Apology."" 

W\}t  Culmination  of  tfjc  Hutfjeran  Confesfsiion 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  but  a  beginning.  Though 
in  it  all  other  Protestants  had  been  excluded  from  partici- 
pation, and  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Luther  had  given  its 
final  answer  to  the  old  world-order  and  to  Rome,  the 
Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  not  yet  given  any 
answer  to  the  antithesis  in  Protestantism  itself. 

The  spirit  of  protest  in  and  for  itself,  to  be  exercised  as 
the  rule,  and  not  as  the  great  exception ;  the  desire  to  cast 
away  the  authority  of  the  fixed  and  the  old,  even  where  this 
authority  was  not  abnormal ;  the  introduction  of  a  rational 


68  p.  624. 
"p    526. 


cxvi  INTKODUCTION 

spirit,  as  the  arbiter  of  faith,  into  religion ;  and  of  restless 
reform  into  society,  was  farther  away,  if  possible,  from  the 
aim  of  the  Lutherans,  than  was  Rome  herself.  What  to  do 
as  to  the  remaining  parts  of  Protestantism — the  Swiss  and 
Strasburgers,  the  humanists,  the  sectarians,  the  English — 
now  became  the  Confessional  problem,  from  1530  on.  Un- 
less conservative  Protestantism,  midway  between  two  ex- 
tremes, could  give  a  sufficient  and  final  answer  to  its  own 
extreme  in  its  own  wing,  even  as  it  had  given  answer  to 
the  Roman  extreme  in  the  other  wing,  it  would  be  ground 
to  powder  between  the  two,  and  disappear. 

It  was  here  that  Melanchthon,  unable  to  satisfy  his 
humanistic  mind  in  the  deeper  mysteries  of  the  faith,  and 
turned  by  the  success  of  Protestantism,  and  by  Bucer, 
farther  away  from  Rome,  sought  to  bridge  the  chasm  be- 
tween Luther's  religion  of  faith  alone,  and  the  Highland- 
er's religion  of  faith  and  reason.  Tschackert,  in  his  recent 
work,"'  presents  a  fine  picture  of  the  inner  thought  of  Me- 
lanchthon, in  which  he  says: 

"Melanchthon  was  a  horn  Greek  and  came  as  such  to  "Wittenberg;  but 
carried  away  by  the  fascinating  power  of  the  mighty  preacher  of  the 
Word  of  God,  he  became  interested  along  theological  lines.  From  Luther 
he  absorbed  the  Pauline  understanding  of  the  Gospel  and  in  his  Loci  he 
brought  the  anti-Roman  propositions  of  Luther  into  teachable  form  .  .  . 
But  more  and  more  clearly,  as  time  went  on,  did  Melanehthon's  own 
peculiar  nature  sepai'ate  itself  alongside  of  and  in  distinction  from 
Luther. 

"Luther's  fundamental  religious  trait  was  that  of  the  boldest  religious 
supranaturalism :  he  had  experienced  faith  as  a  deed  of  God's  grace  done 
to  him,  and  in  his  religious  heroism  he  did  not  concern  himself  with  any 
reflections  as  to  how  this  fact  was  i)ossible  or  by  what  means  it  had  been 
accomplished.  But  Melanchthon  needed  an  ethical  mediation  of  the  life  of 
faith,  and  he  did  not  perceive  this  fully  until  after  Luther's  conflict  with 
Erasmus.  .  .  .  The  Classics  of  the  Greeks  had  represented  the  highest 
pure  human  wisdom  of  life  in  a  knowledge  of  natui'e  and  in  the  culture 
of  morals  to  Melanchthon. 

"...  But  after  the  conflict  of  Luther  with  Erasmus,  Melanchthon 
would  have  been  most  glad  to  witlidraw  himself  from  theological  lec- 
tures. Through  the  instrumentality  of  Luther  he  was  nevertheless  en- 
trusted with  the  theological  professorate  by  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony 


*^  Die  EntHlehinKj  der  luthcrisclien  utid  rcformierten  KirchenJehre,  Gottingen, 
1910,  pp.  502-504. 


INTRODUCTION  cxvii 

in  the  year  1526,  although  he  was  neither  a  licentiate  nor  a  doctor  of 
theology.  After  that  he  also  belonged  to  the  Theological  Faculty  and 
labored  untiringly  in  this  his  position  for  theology  and  the  Church,  and 
particularly  after  the  death  of  Luther  he  accomplished  wonderful  things 
for  the  theological  development  of  the  students  at  Wittenberg  by  means 
of  his  touching  fidelity  to  the  duty  of  a  teacher. 

"But  despite  his  holding  fast  to  Luther,  he  went  his  own  way  in 
scientific  theology  after  the  second  half  of  the  second  decade.  First  of  all 
ho  retired  the  doctrine  of  predestination  because  it  appeared  to  him  as  an 
'unentwiri'bares  Labyrinth  dor  Gewissen.'  .  .  .  Further  he  was  ruled 
by  a  strongly  ethical  method  of  viewing  thought.  .  .  .  This  funda- 
mental view  letl  him  to  synergism  in  the  doctrine  of  conversion  .  .  . 
it  also  led  him  to  the  emphasis  of  the  necessity  of  good  works  in  the 
Christian  life.  Then  finally  he  desired  a  simplification  of  the  doctrine 
in  matters  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  a  reduction  of  the  same  to  that 
which  was  necessary  for  pereonal  faith  in  salvation  with  the  exclusion  of 
metaphysical  propositions.  If  these  peculiarities  of  teaching  were  to  be 
emphasized  in  a  one-sided  way,  they  could  easily  become  the  foundation 
of  theological  differences.  To  this  was  added  the  fact  that  Melanchthon 
himself  after  the  death  of  Luther,  in  the  confusions  subsequent  to  the 
Schmalkald  War,  had  more  and  more  to  assume  the  role  of  a  public  leader, 
not  only  in  theology,  but  much  more  in  affairs  of  the  Church. 

.  .  .  "In  spite  of  all  the  personal  weaknesses  of  Melanchthon,  it  re- 
mains his  merit  that  he  led  the  stream  of  humanism  into  the  bed  of 
Protestantism,  and  united  science  and  faith  in  salvation  in  innermost 
unity.  .  .  .  He  proved  in  his  own  person  that  religious  faith  could 
exist  alongside  of  the  most  brilliant  culture,  while  in  Italy  humanism 
deteriorated  into  skepticism  and  atheism. 

"Nevertheless  Melanchthon  dare  not  be  set  up  as  a  parallel  alongside  of 
Luther.  ...  So  long  as  Luther  lived,  Melanchthon  strengthened  the 
Protestant  backbone ;  but  after  Luther's  death  Melanchthon  lost  all  hold 
en  the  public  guidance  of  the  Church.  In  an  unfortunate  private  letter 
of  the  28th  of  April,  l.j4S,  to  Carlowitz,  the  counsel  of  the  Elector  Maurice 
of  Saxony,  the  intimidated  man  confessed  that  under  Luther  he  had 
suffered  an  'almost  ignominious  captivity'  and  gives  to  understand  that 
lie  was  obliged  to  'conceal'  his  own  views.  'Tuli  etiam  antea  servitutem 
paene  deformem,  cum  saepe  Lutherus  magis  suae  naturae,  in  qua 
(piXnvztxia  erat  non  exigua,  quam  vel  personae  suae  vel  utilitati  communi 
serviret.  Et  scio,  omnibus  aetatibus,  ut  tempestatum  incommoda,  ita  ali- 
qua  in  gubematione  vitia  modestis  arte  ferenda  et  dissimulanda  esse..  .  . 
Fortassis  natura  sum  ingeuio  servili.'  °^  From  that  time  on  the  cunning 
receiver  of  the  letter  knew  that  Melanchthon  was  wax  in  his  hands."™ 


••C.  n.  9,  879ff. 
»pp.  502-504. 


cxviii  INTRODUCTION 

Thus  it  was  that  the  concealed  antithesis  between  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  on  doctrine  now  often  regarded  as  not 
fundamental,  led  to  violent  and  extreme  disruption  in  the 
Church  after  the  death  of  the  principals,  and  that  the  con- 
flict should  concentrate  in  the  central  and  typical  mystery 
of  the  Christian  Faith,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
"There  is  not  a  day  nor  a  night  for  the  last  ten  years," 
declares  Melanchthon,  "that  I  did  not  meditate  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  But  the  meditation  of 
Melanchthon  was  upon  a  truth  that  might  be  held  in 
reason,"  while  the  meditation  of  Luther  was  upon  a  real- 
ity "  embraced  by  faith.  To  Luther  the  Sacrament  is  God's 
unchangeable  fact.  ' 

"Can  you  think,"  he  says,  "that  God  is  so  concerned  about  what  we  do 
and  believe,  as  on  that  account  to  change  bis  institutions?""  "The 
chief  point,"  says  he,  "is  the  Word  and  institution  of  God."  Hence  he 
presents  the  Saci-ament  (Small  Catechism,  Part  V)  not  as  a  mode  of 
truth,  nor  as  a  result  sained  by  argument,  but  as  the  great  fact  of  Chris- 
tianity, to  be  used  as  such.  It  is  this  dependence  on  the  fact,  which  was 
the  strength  of  Luther  and  Lutheranism.  "Tlie  doctrines  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church  cannot  be  changed,"  says  Krauth."  Is  it  any  wonder  that 
Melanchthon's  changes  could  not  voice  these  doctrines? 

Tender,  conciliatory,  peace-loving,  hoping  to  the  last, 
even  after  the  Convention  of  Worms  in  1557,  for  a  recon- 
ciliation of  the  various  branches  of  the  Christian  Church, 
Melanchthon's  principle  centred  in  the  human  side  of 
Christianity,  the  unity  of  the  Church,  while  Luther's  prin- 
ciple centred  in  the  divine  side  of  Christianity,  the  reality, 
even  into  all  mystery,  of  Christ. 

"The  Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church" 
treats  the  years  and  the  movements  between  the  death  of 
Luther  and  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  with 
fulness.    Of  the  period  between  the  Augsburg  and  the  Leip- 


^'  Cp.  The  admission  in  The  Confessional  History,  p.  113,  "With  Luther, 
sacrament  was  res  saera,  with  Melanchthon  it  was  ritus.  See  Apology,  De 
Numero  et  Usu  Sacratnentorum." 

"  Cp.  Large  Cat.  :  "The  entire  Gospel  is  by  the  Word  embodied  in  thia 
Sacrament." — B.  of  C.  Jacobs,  p.  479. 

''^  Large  Catechism,  lb.  pp.  476-477. 

«C.  P.  Kraiith  by  Spaeth,  p.  301. 


INTRODUCTION  cx\x 

zig  Interims,  the  author  writes  of  Melanchthon,  "His  con- 
duct was  all  that  could  be  reasonably  expected  of  him  in 
these  perilous  times.'"'" 

He  quotes  v.  Ranke  with  approval  as  follows :  "And  so  much  is  cer- 
tain, that  though  they  yielded  and  followed,  still  they  did  not  violate  the 
Evangelical  system  in  its  essence"  (p.  321).  The  endorsement  of  the 
Augshurg  interim  was  unfortunate  cJiieflij,  in  the  eyes  of  "Tlie  Confes- 
sional Histoi'y"  hecawie  It  introduced  the  spirit  of  schism  into  the  Luth- 
eran Church,  which  has  liann1<'d  il  to  this  day"  (p.  323).  Flacius  "out- 
Jjuthrrcd  Luther''  (p.  324),  and  appears  as  the  author  of  the  strife 
with  Major  and  Osiander  (p.  325).  In  the  Crypto-Calvinistic  controversy 
"ndther  side  maintained  the  Luther-Melanchthon  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper"   (p.  329). 

Nearly  forty  pages  are  devoted  by  the  author  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Predestination  and  Free  Will. 

Luther's  position  in  the  De  ^<rro  ArVitrio  is  characterized  as  fatalistic 
or  necessitarian  (p.  3(i<i).  and  it  is  declared  (p.  370)  that  "The  Philip- 
pists  maintained  the  true  Lutheran  doctrine  of  sin,  both  original  and 
actual;  maintained  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  the  Call, 
and  taught  that  when  tlw  Will  (Voluntas)  is  excited  and  assisted  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  the  Word,  it  is  not  absolutely  inactive,  but  assents 
to  or  rejects  the  divine  promise  and  offer  of  salvation." 

In  discussing  the  later  Christological  controversy, 
Luther's  position  is  properly  presented — 

"And  yet  Luther  .  .  .  shows  a  i)reference,  or  at  least  a  great  fond- 
ness for  the  human  nature  of  Christ"  (p.  373).  Melanchthon  (p.  374) 
"regarded  the  communicutio  idioniatum  as  a  figure  of  speech"'"  Melanch- 
thon's  teaching  "does  not  differ  in  its  Christological  aspects  from  the 
doctrine  of  Luther,  except  that  it  has  no  speculative  element,  such  as 
Luther  introduced  in  connection  with  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  no  mystical  element,  such  as  Luther  often  introduced  in  his  The 
Freedom  of  a  Christian  Man,  and  in  his  House  Postils,  though  as  Luther 
grew  older  his  sense  of  the  Christ  for  us  more  and  more  took  precedence 
of  his  sense  of  the  Christ  in  us."  (p.  37(3.) 

In  coming  to  a  comparison  between  the  teaching  of  the 
two  recent  works  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which 
have  appeared  since  our  own  volume  was  written,  we 
find  that  Tschackert  defends  the  Formula,  as  the  crystal- 
lization of  a  certain  consensus,  which  had  gradually  formed 

"p.  .^21.     (The  italics  are  ours.) 
^eC.  R.  XXI,  p.  3R3. 


cxx  I N  T  E  O  D  r  C  T  I  O  K 

itself  during  and  after  the  doctrinal  conflicts,  and  which 
expressed  the  genuine  Lutheran  doctrine,  in  the  way  of  the 
day,  it  is  true,  but  in  a  manner  that  clarified  and  gave  a 
decisive  directive  to  Lutheran  theology." 

The  other  volume  before  us  finds,  after  careful  and  pro- 
longed examination,  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  a  parti- 
san writing  which  was  forced  upon  the  churches,  whose 
"unreconciled  antitheses  and  spirit  of  controversy"  has 
done  no  good  to  the  Church,  but  has  been  productive  of  a 
great  amount  of  injury. 

Tschackert  does  not  regard  the  Formula  as  a  Symbol  of 
the  Church,  because  it  arose  after  the  death  of  Luther,  and 
because  it  is  of  a  theological  rather  than  of  a  popular  reli- 
gious character.  The  other  author  does  not  regard  it  as  a 
Symbol  since  it  was  born  in  a  bad  way,  was  acknowledged 
chiefly  by  coercion,  and  has  been  the  cause  of  pretty  nearly 
all  the  trouble  and  harm  that  has  come  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  Germany  and  in  America  since  its  own  day. 

Tschackert  concludes  that  the  content  and  scope  of  the 
Formula  was  determined  entirely  by  the  circumstances  of 
the  times.  Each  article  is  an  independent  little  monograph, 
corresponding  to  its  own  independent  doctrinal  contro- 
versy. "Yet  they  are  not  altogether  neutral  toward  each 
other;  they  all  arise  out  of  a  common  soil,  the  Lutheran 
scriptural  doctrine  of  justification  with  its  presuppositions 
and  consequences;  on  this  their  inner  connection  rests." 
"Thus  the  Formula  of  Concord  wrought  in  clarifying  and 
further  developing  the  relation  of  human  freedom  to  divine 
grace,  in  conversion,  in  justification,  in  good  works,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  in  Christology  and  Predestination." 

The  other  author  finds  in  the  Formula  a  useless  reviving 
of  controversies  that  already  had  died  down  of  their  own 
accord,  an  internal  weakening  and  external  dividing  of  the 
Church,  and  the  introduction  of  doctrinal  confusion,  rather 
than  the  "reestablishment  of  continuity  with  genuine  Luth- 
eran doctrine." 

As  to  the  dialectic  method  of  the  Formula,  Tschackert 

"pp.  571,  572. 


INTRODUCTION  cxxi 

explains  it  as  that  of  "dogmatic  loci,  to  whose  form  every- 
one was  accustomed  through  the  school  of  Melanchthon." 
In  this,  namely  that  the  hardening  of  form  was  not  due  to 
an  extreme  Lutheranism,  he  is  in  agreement  with  Seeberg, 
and  takes  issue  with  Kawerau  and  Loofs.  Tschackert 
says, 

"The  criticism  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  chauscd  Luther's  doc- 
uiue  of  the  faith  is  not  applicable.  Doubtless  it  has  emphasized  the  in- 
tellectual element  in  Luther's  conception  of  faith  in  a  one-sided  way,  and 
also  has,  on  occasion,  called  the  (jospel  a  'doctrine,  which  teaches  what 
man  shall  believe.'  But  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  connection 
the  Formula  of  Concord  has  expressly  declared  that  faith  consists  'only 
in  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus.'  (This  is  in  answer  to  Moeller-Kawerau, 
Kirchcngeschichte  III,  268:  'This  sentence  shows  most  clearly  the 
change  that  had  come  over  Luther's  doctrine  of  faith.'  Loofs  goes  still 
further,  Dogmengeschichte  927:  that  through  the  Formula  of  Concord 
and  the  Book  of  Concord  the  'doctrinal  toi-pidness  [Erstarrungl  of  the 
Reformation  thought  had  come  to  its  climax.')  Neither  is  the  ethical 
motive  in  Luther's  conception  of  faith  at  all  wanting  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord.  We  can  surely  point  to  the  fact  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
iiself  in  its  seventh  article  says  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  condi- 
tioned by  the  'doctrina  evangelii'  together  with  the  scriptural  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments." 

As  to  the  doctrinal  effect  of  the  Formula,  Tschackert 
says, 

"The  Formula  of  Concord  restored  a  unity  of  doctrine  in  the  majority  of 
Lutheran  countries;  it  pushed  Philippism  to  a  side  and  distinguished  itself 
from  Calvinism.  The  extremes  of  the  Gnesio-Lutherans  were  decidedly 
rejected,  but  on  the  whole  none  of  the  opponents  was  mentioned  by  name 
in  order  that  no  personalities  might  creep  into  the  work  of  union.  That 
the  composers  over-valued  the  importance  of  their  work  and  gave  to  it 
the  signiticance  of  a  rule  of  doctrine  for  the  future  is  to  be  regretted: 
but  this  view  of  their  own  work  exercised  no  influence  upon  the  formation 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Therefore  this  judgment  as  to  itself,  which 
at, any  rate  comes  to  light  only  incidentally,  can  be  left  out  of  considera- 
tion when  we  are  dealing  with  a  valuation  of  the  content.  Thus  the 
whole  presents  itself  as  a  carefully  thought  out  and  sharply  distinct 
thought-structure  which  has  given  decisive  directives  to  the  Lutheran 
theology."  ™ 

As  to  the  ecclesiastical  effect  Tschackert  says : 

"The  authoritative  character  of  the  Book  of  Concord  brought  it  about 
that  the  churches  of  those  countries  that  governed  themselves  by  it,  felt 

^*  pp.  571-572. 


cxxii  I  N  T  E  O  D  U  C  T  1  O  N 

themselves  as  the  'Lutheran  Church'  ...  In  the  Formula  of  Concord  the 
churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  are  still  called  'ecclesiae  reformatae.' 
But  since  in  foreign  lands,  in  France,  Holland  and  England  the  evan- 
gelicals there  called  themselves  'Reformed, '  and  since  the  Philippists,  who 
in  Germany  annexed  themselves  to  Calvinism  after  the  introduction  of  the 
Book  of  Concord,  took  the  characterization  'Reformiert'  for  their  Parti- 
cular Church,  the  adherents  of  the  Book  of  Concord  at  the  same  time 
distinguished  themselves  from  these  as  the  'Lutheran  Church.'  "  '" 

The  manner  of  introducing  the  Formula,  Tschackert  ex- 
plains as  follows : 

"The  introduction  of  the  Book  of  Concord  as  the  rule  of  doctrine,  was 
on  act  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  each  of  the  estates  which  since 
Luther's  appeal  'to  the  Christian  Nobility'  had  gradually  developed  itself 
of  its  own  accord  in  the  x-ealm  of  Protestantism."  ^ 

As  to  the  range  of  the  acceptance  of  the  Formula, 
Tschackert  says, 

"All  the  Corpora  doctriuae  mentioned  up  to  this  point  posses.sed  a  sig- 
nificance only  for  the  local  state  churches,  but  almost  all  of  them  lost 
even  this  of  themselves,  when  a  confessional  book  of  almost  universal 
acceptance  came  into  being  in  the  sphere  of  Lutheranism  (in  Bereich 
des  Luthertums  ein  nahezu  allgemein  giltiges  Bekenntnisbuch),  the  Book 
of  Concord  of  the  year  ir»80.  After  the  Formula  of  Concord  had  been 
completed  and  recognized  by  numerous  evangelical  estates,  the  plan  is 
resolved  on  in  Electoral  Saxony  now  to  set  up  a  unifying  Corpus  doc- 
trinae  for  all  adherents  to  the  same."  " 

As  to  the  Churches  that  failed  to  sign  the  Formula, 
Tschackert  expresses  the  following  judgment : 

"Those  who  did  not  sign  the  Formula  by  no  means  refused  for  dogmatic 
reasons.  On  the  other  hand  their  reasons  were  chiefly  political  or  local  or 
personal,  and  if  King  Freflerick  by  his  decree  of  July  24th,  1580  forbade 
(he  publication  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  the  Lutheran  churches  of 
Sweden  and  Denmark  on  penalty  of  death,  this  was  purely  for  political 
reasons.  Although  later  still  some  dissenting  state  churches  accepted  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  it  has  nevertheless  never  formally  been  the  con- 
fession of  the  whole  of  Lutheranism   (Kolde,  Introduction,  LXXIIL"*^ 

There  are  two  points  in  which  Tschackert  does  not  agree 
with  us  in  his  estimate  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  In  the 
first  place  he  sets  it  down  as  "only  an  Order  of  Doctrine" 


"p.  625. 
»"p.  025. 
"p.  620. 
»=  p.  569. 


INTRODUCTION  cxxiii 

but  admits,  in  this  connection,  that  according  to  the  think- 
ing of  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  it  was  the 
"pure  doctrine"  which  conditioned  "the  existence  of  the 
churches  themselves." 

He  says.  "It  is  this  pure  doctrine  which  establishes  the  whole  and 
stable  existence  of  the  religion,  worship,  and  thought  of  the  Church; 
faith,  worship,  good  works,  the  relation  to  the  state,  everything  receives 
it«  direction  thixjugh  the  pure  doctrine."  But  for  our  modern  day  he 
accepts  the  canon,  "The  more  theology  a  confession  contains,  the  less 
proper  is  it  for  a  confession  of  the  congregation,"  and  cites  the  Apostles' 
Creed  as  an  incomparable  confession  for  the  congregation  because  it  con- 
tains no  theology  at  all,  but  only  faith  in  the  divine  plan  of  salvation. 
He  admits  that  his  modern  canon  "was  not  yet  needed  for  the  second 
generation  of  the  Reformation  theologians  and  their  Christian  state 
authorities.'"'^ 

The  second  point  of  difference  in  Tschackert  is  his  view 
that  the  Formula  of  Concord  develops  the  doctrine  of  the 
two  natures  of  Christ  on  the  teaching  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  based  its 
teaching  on  the  philosophical  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of 
the  Person  of  Christ.  Thus  he  says,""  "Luther's  theory  of 
the  Ubiquitas  corporis  Christi  has  not  been  carried  over 
into  our  Symbols ;  it  was  only  taken  up  later  by  the  Formu- 
la of  Concord  under  the  stimulus  of  the  renewed  controver- 
sies concerning  the  Lord's  Supper." 

Yet  in  making  these  two  criticisms  of  the  Formula, 
Tschackert  at  the  same  time  offers  most  substantial  con- 
cessions to  the  strength  of  the  teaching  of  the  Formula. 
As  differentiating  the  teaching  of  the  Formula  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  two  natures  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 


^"  We  do  not  believe  that  Tsehackert's  modern  confessional  canon  has  any 
suiind  basis  in  the  necessities  of  this  age.  If  it  had,  and  if  a  confession  is 
to  be  limited  to  that  which  can  readily  bo  used  by  the  congregation  in  its 
worship,  not  only  tlie  I•^)rmllla  of  Concord,  but  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the 
Apology  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  all  of  which  Tschackert  numbers  among 
the  confessions  of  the  Church,  would  likewise  be  ruled  out.  The  fact  is  that 
an  "unreflective  lay  Christianity"  as  over  against  a  "theologico-scientific" 
apprehension  of  the  Gospel  is  less  characteristic  of  our  condition  today  than 
ever,  for  this  is  a  dny  when  theology,  with  all  its  doctrines,  is  being  discussed 
by  clergy  and  laymen  in  nearly  all  the  papers  and  popular  magazines  of  the 
'and.  There  never  has  been  a  time  when  the  educated  layman  has  been  so 
"reflective"  on  the  matter  of  the  substantial  content  of  creeds,  notwithstand- 
ing his  aversion  to  their  fixed  form. 

«^p.  323. 


cxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

Tschackert  declares  that  the  Formula  "continues  to  develop 
it  to  a  definite  doctrine  of  the  Unio  personalis  and  the  real 
and  total  Communicatio  idiomatum."  He  says  definitely, 
"The  unity  of  both  natures  dare  not  be  thought  of  in  the 
manner  of  the  Nestorian  and  the  Antiochian  theologians  as 

purely  external On  the  other  hand  both  natures 

enter  into  such  a  unity  with  each  other  that  they  constitute 
a  single  and  unique  person.  Thus  both  natures  enter  into 
the  innermost  conceivable  communion  with  each  other.'"^ 
Again  he  says,  "The  Formula  of  Concord  describes  the 
transfer  of  the  divine  attributes  to  the  human  nature  of  the 
Godman  in  incomparable  terms.'"" 

The  true  fact  is  that  Luther  drew  his  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  directly  from  the  Scripture.  It  was  the 
reality  in  Scripture  which  became  the  reality  in  his  teach- 
ing. It  was  Christ  Himself  in  His  Word,  Whom  the  re- 
formers knew  thoroughly.  Out  of  their  experience  of 
Christ,  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
Tschackert  himself  tells  us  that  it  is  wrong  to  suppose  that 
the  Lutheran  Christology  was  developed  for  the  purpose 
of  supporting  the  Lutheran  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
From  the  beginning,  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
according  to  Tschackert,  was  purely  religious"  and  not 
theological.  It  was  a  religious  experience,  effected  by  God's 
Word.  The  theological  explanation  of  the  doctrine  came 
after  the  experience  of  the  reality,  and  did  not  precede  it. 
Whatever  was  used  from  the  old  church  doctrine  was  not 
creative  of  the  nature  and  personality  of  Christ  as  an  idea, 
but  was  the  building  out  of  an  already  well  known  fact  of 
experience,  and  whatever  was  added  from  the  still  wider 
periphery  of  philosophy,  was  regarded  as  illustrative  and 
not  as  the  foundation  of  the  reality. 

It  is  for  this  reason,  among  others,  that  we  object  so 
strenuously  to  characterizing  the  teaching  of  Luther  and 
the  Formula  on  the  Person  of  Christ  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  a  philosophical  doctrine,  rather  than  as 


85  p.  553. 
««p.  555. 
87  p.  320. 


INTEODUCTION  cxxv 

a  revealed  fact  in  the  Word  of  God.  And  for  this  reason 
too  the  philosophic  term  "ubiquity"  does  not  describe  the 
real  content  and  essence  of  the  Formula's  teaching/' 
Tschackert  himself  feels  this,  and  therefore  says  (p.  557), 
"In  the  ultimate  analysis  we  find  it  to  be  a  religious  interest 
which  causes  the  theory  of  ubiquity  to  be  set  up ;  this  is  true 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  the  same  as  of  Luther."  And 
then,  by  way  of  apology  and  defense  he  goes  on  to  say  that 
"a  formula  free  from  objections  has  not  been  found  either 
for  this  theory  or  for  the  whole  communicatio  idiomata." 
It  is  therefore  so  true  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  drawn 
directly  from  the  Scripture,  is  the  fundamental  teaching  in 
the  Formula.  The  Godman  is  the  Mediator  of  salvation 
according  to  His  whole  person,  not  only  in  the  history  of 
salvation,  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  past,  but  also  for  the 
present  and  for  the  whole  future. 

Although  Luther  knew  Biel  and  Peter  D'Ailly  alnaost  by  heart  and  the 
nominalistic  point  of  view  made  it  easy  for  him  to  regard  Christianity  as 
a  historical  fact  rather  than  a  philosophical  system,  and  although 
D'Ailly's  doubt  as  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  the  starting 
point  of  Luther's  own  doubt,  yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  philosophy  or  any- 
thing else  than  Scripture  controlled  Luther's  thinking.  Melanchthon  had 
studied  the  Nominalists  just  as  thoroughly  as  Luther,  yet  Luther's  devel- 
opment, in  spite  of  the  similarity  of  the  Nominalist  influence  upon  both, 
is  different  from  Melanchthon's.** 

Turning  to  "The  Confessiorml  History*'^"  we  find  the 
following  formal  statement  on  the  Book  of  Concord : 

"After  careful  and  prolonged  examination  of  by  far  the  larger  part  of 
the  official  and  other  trustworthy  literature  in  connection  with  the 
composition,  subscription  and   introduction  of  the  Formula  of  Concord" 


8s  Moller-Kawerau  {The  Confessional  Hisiory,  p.  485)  has  admitted  that 
"undoubtedly,  ubiquity  was  not  expressed  [in  the  Formula  of  Concord]  In 
the  absolute  sense  of  the  Wurtembergers." 

8»  The  passage  in  which  Luther  refers  to  this  matter  is  found  in  the  Baby- 
lonian Captivity.  Erl.,  op.  lat.  var.  arg.  V.,  29,  and  as  quoted  by  Tschackert 
runs  as  follows  :  "Dedit  mihi  quondam,  quum  theologiam  scholasticam  haur/- 
rem,  occasionom  cogitandi  D.  Cardinalis  Camerarensis  [i.  e.,  Ailli],  libro  Sen- 
tentiarum  IV  acutissime  disputans,  multo  probabilins  esse  et  minus  super- 
fluorum  miraculorum  poni,  si  in  altari  verus  panis  verumque  vinum,  non 
autem  sola  accidentia  esse  astruerentur,  nisi  ecelesia  determinasset  contra- 
riura.  Postea  videns,  quae  eseet  ecelesia,  quae  hoc  determinasset,  nempe 
Thomistica,  hoc  est  Aristotelica,  audacior  factvrs  sum." 

«Opp.  515.  516. 


cxxvi  IlSrTRODUCTION 

the  author  of  "The  Confessional   History""  holds  "the  following  proposi- 
tions to  be  historically  incontrovertible  : 

"1.     The  Formula  of  Concord  was  forced  upon  the  churches,"  "^  etc. 

"2,  The  chief  objections  raised  against  the  Formula  of  Concord  were 
the  hypothesis  of  ubiquity,  and  the  uses  made  of  that  hypothesis  as  a 
basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real  bodily  presence,'"'-'-  etc. 

"3.  The  great  majority  of  the  Lutheran  churches  which  rejected  the 
Formula  of  Concord  vindicated  their  Lutheran  character  by  appealing 
to  the  older  Lutheran  confessions."  "^ 

"4.  The  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  cause  of  the  most  bitter  con- 
troversies, dissensions  and  alienations."  "* 

"And  now,  in  the  presence  of  these  propositions,  which  can  be  estab- 
lished, and  must  be  established,  by  every  historian  who  searches  and 
writes  in  the  interest  of  historical  science,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
supporting  a  prepossession,  the  question  naturally  arises,  Did  the  Formu- 
la of  Concord  do  more  harm  than  good?  .  .  .  The  question  is  one  for 
historical  solution  by  the  use  of  all  the  facts  involved.  .  .  .  The  history 
itself'^  must  constitute  the  basis  of  judgment.   .    .    ."       (PI>-  f>l-">,  510.) 

"Taking  all  those  things  into  account,  we  believe  that  the  impartial 
verdict  of  history  will  be  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  done  more 
harm  than  it  has  done  good.  .  .  .  At  no  time  has  it  been  an  instrument 
of  concord  for  the  entire  Lutheran  Church.  Its  unreconciled  antitheses 
.  .  .  and  the  spirit  of  controversy  and  condemiiation  which  it  breathes 
.  .  .  and  which  it  has  communicated  to  so  many  of  its  adherents,  has 
helped  to  make  the  Lutheran  Church  the  most  controversial  of  all  the 
Protestant  communions." 


^'  "It  was  not  some  theological  party  that  had  forced  its  views  upon  the 
IjUthoran  Church,  but  a  germ  of  a  consensus  which  had  been  at  hand,  had 
attained  to  its  unfolding  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  It  represented  a 
Mclanchthonian    Lutheranism." — Seebero    in    Herzoff-Hniirk    Realencyclopedia. 

^-  Against  this  see  our  argument  in  chapter  XXXIII. 

"^Their  objections  were  not,  as  a  rule,  of  a  confessional  character. 

"*  Against  this  sec  the  argument  in  chapter  XXXV. 

It  was  able  to  pacify  the  Lutheran  Church. — Seehery  in  Herzog-Hauck 
Realencyclopedia. 

*'  A  new  confession  was  a  historical  necessity. — Secherg  in  Herzog-Hauck 
Realencyclopedia. 

The  Melanchthonian  conception  of  the  Church  itself  demanded  siu'h  a  de- 
risive judgment  of  doctrinal  differences. — lb. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  arose  from  a  necessity  of  history,  and  within  its 
sphere  it  solved  the  problem  in  a  prudent  and  far-sighted  way. — Tb. 

Nothing  is  better  fitted  to  show  the  historical  necessity  of  a  final  Lutheran 
confession  than  the  temporary  dominion  of  Philippism  in  Electral-Saxony 
which  broke  to  pieces  the  moment  that  the  dishonorable  guise  in  which  It 
had  hitherto  maintained  itself,  was  torn  away. — lb. 


INTRODUCTION  cxxvii 

Since  "The  Confessional  History"  rises  far  above  the 
field  of  polemics  into  an  atmosphere  of  equanimity  and 
concord,  and  is  purified  from  all  tinge  of  the  controversial 
temper,  and  since  its  aim  is  the  grand  work  of  pacification 
in  the  Church,  we  must  give  it  the  credit  of  this  attainment 
without  having  been  influenced  thereunto  by  the  Book  of 
Concord.  It  cannot  be  accused  of  devotion  either  to  the 
positiva  or  the  negativa  in  the  Formula.  It  sacrifices  no 
section  of  its  space  to  the  praises  of  the  Formula,  although 
there  is  a  chapter  on  its  censures  (The  Censures  of  the 
Torgau  Book)  ;  and  the  Sources  for  these  censures  are, 
among  others  ""  such  admirers  of  our  Church  as  Hospinian 
and  Heppe. 

"The  Confessional  History"  opens  its  discussion  of  mod- 
ern confessional  issues  with  a  eulogy  of  Schleiermacher, 
and  of  Claus  Harms;  with  a  defence  of  the  Prussian 
Union ;  with  a  brief  description  of  the  confessional  move- 
ment in  Germany. 

Under  Rudelbach,  Gnericke,  KiHlner,  Sartoriiis,  Riohter  and  Harless. 
The  description  is  jjood  except  that  the  contention  of  the  anti-symbolists 
that  "the  Symbolical  Books  go  beyond  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  in 
many  points  pass  it  by,"  is  quoted,  and  unquestioned.*'  "It  does  not  appear 
that  any  one  wished  to  abolish  the  Symbolical  Books  entirely,  for  even  a 
Paulus  of  Jena  had  subscribed  the  Symbolical  Books,"  etc.**  The  activity 
of  Stahl,  Kliefoth,  Philippi,  Thomasius,  Kahnis,  von  Hofmann,  Schmid, 
Luthard,  Frank  and  Zockler  is  suggested  as  being  the  Romanticising  of 
Lutheranism.  In  the  discussion  of  the  modem  German  formulae  of  sub- 
scription, it  quotes  approvingly  the  essay  of  Braun  (1875),  in  which  the 
following  occurs  :  "The  Formula  of  Concord  is  scarcely  any  longer  to 
bo  named  a  Confession,  yea,  it  itself  expressly  declares  that  it  is  not  in- 
tended to  be  a  Confession" ;  and  the  following :  "The  narrow-hearted 
Irtter-slayes  of  the  Symbols  think  that  they  advance  the  interest  of  the 
Church  by  their  conduct.  They  do  not  see  that  in  that  way  they  only 
split  the  Church  into  fragments.  .  .  .  But  there  will  be  symbol-slaves 
so  long  as  there  is  a  Church  and  a  Confession,  for  the  tendency  in  that 
direction  lies  deep  in  human  nature.  Hence  we  must  bear  this  evil  as  we 
have  to  bear  a  thousand  others,"  etc. 

In    describing   the   confessional   subscription    of   Denmark,    the    act    of 


»<=p.  452. 
»Tp.  .^79. 
««p.  579. 


cxxviii  INTKODUCTION 

Frederick  II  is  quoted  with  apparent  approval,  but  hardly  the  formula  of 
subscription  of  1870  which  speaks  of  "the  Syniibolical  Books  of  our 
Danish  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church."  As  to  present-day  Norway,  the 
author  seems  to  commend  the  clergymen  who  in  1908  "advocated  the 
shelving  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Symbols,"  and  says,  "A  country 
where  such  an  advocation  is  i-espectfully  listened  to,  will,  of  course  hold 
its  own  against  any  possible,  but  improbable,  attempt  to  foist  the  Book  of 
Concord  upon  it."  ^^ 

As  for  the  attitude  of  Sweden  to  the  Book  of  Concord  we  refer  to 
Prof.  Forsander's  discussion  of  the  adoption  of  the  Book  of  Concord 
in  Sweden.^"" 

We  are  nonplussed  by  the  chapter  in  The  Confessional 
History  on  the  Confessions  in  America.  Many  facts  are 
given,  intermingled  with  statements  that  are  true  in  a 
sense  as  statements,  but  not  true  in  the  impression  which 
they  convey.  We  wonder  whether  the  author  understood, 
or  whether  he  consciously  minimized  the  significance  of  the 
"Amsterdam  Church  Order"  ?  Muhlenberg  is  declared  not 
to  be  a  "confessionalist,"  a  charge  which  the  Patriarch  re- 
futed in  his  own  life  time.    The  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 


^p.  508. 

^'^  The  Adoption  of  the  Aiigshurg  Confessiot)  and  the  Book  of  Concord  in 
Sweden.     [N.  Forsander,  The  Council  of  Vpsala,  pp.  8,  9.] 

"During  both  sessions  of  the  following  day  the  remaining  part  of  our  glori- 
ous Lutheran  confession  was  earnestly  discussed  and  unanimously  adopted- 
At  the  discussion  of  the  tenth  article,  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  president 
severely  admonished  the  clergy  carefully  to  guard  themselves  against  Calvlu- 
istic  errors,  whereupon  bishop  Petrus  .Jouae  arose  and  freed  himself  from  sus- 
picions for  such  views.  When  the  reading  and  discussion  of  the  whole  con- 
fession was  finished,  bishop  Tetrus  Jonae  stepped  forth  and  solemnly  asked 
the  senators  and  all  members  present  :  'Do  ye  sanction  this  confession,  as  it 
is  now  read  and  approved?"  All  standing  up  unanimously  declared,  that  they 
would  never  forsake  it,  but  willingly  sacrifice  life  and  blood  for  the  same. 
The  president  then  exclaimed  loudly  :  'Now  Sweden  has  become  one  man,  and 
we  all  have  one  Lord  and  one  Ood  I' 

"Such  a  question  as  this  might  he  raised  by  some  of  us  :  'Why  did  the  men 
of  the  Council  in  150^  then  not  adopt  the  whole  Rook  of  Concord,  which  was 
published  already  in  l.^RO?'  Xicolaus  Olavi  and  several  of  the  leading  men 
at  Fpsala  in  ^^r^f)?i  had  studied  theology  nt  Rostock  under  Dr.  David  Ohy- 
traeus.  one  of  the  chief  editors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  by  their 
actions  and  writings  these  members  present  at  the  Council  have  clearly  shown 
thnt  they  were  in  full  and  hearty  accord  with  their  esteemed  teacher  and 
with  all  the  Symbolical  books  contained  in  the  Book  of  Concord.  But  these 
Symbolical  books  were  at  that  time  not  known  enough  in  Sweden  to  be  all 
treated  and  adopted  intelligently  in  some  few  days  allotted  to  the  Council. 
It  was  also  pedagogical  wisdom  to  delay  the  adoption  of  the  whole  Book  of 
Concoi'd  by  the  Swedish  Church  until  the  appropriate  time  would  come.  This 
adoption  wns  asked  for  by  the  clergy  in  1647,  and  was  authorized  oy  the 
government   in  1003." 


INTRODTJCTION  cxxix 

vania  is  termed  "a  Philadelphia  organization,"  and  it  is 
said  of  it  "neither  did  it  formally  declare  its  relations  to 
the  confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church."  But  the  most 
glaring  misrepresentation  is  to  be  found""  in  this 
text-book's  interpretation  of  the  Fundamental  Princi- 
ples of  the  general  body  of  which  the  Ministerium  is 
a    part.      The    author    says    that    this    body    is    bound 

"to  the  very  wortls  of  the  Symbols,  and  makes  no  distinction  between 
their  form  and  their  substance,  and  virtually  it  places  them  on  a  level 
of  authority  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  since  it  declares  'that  the  Unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession,  in  its  original  sense,  is  throughout  in  con- 
formity with  the  pure  truth  of  which  God's  Word  is  the  only  rule' ;  for  if 
it  be  throughout  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  God's  Word,  then 
it  must  have  the  same  authority  as  God's  Word,  for  things  that  are 
throughout  in  conformity  with  each  other  must  have  the  same  value 
and  authority." 

This  is  a  rigid  enforcement  of  the  letter  of  scholastic 
logic,  the  like  of  which  we  do  not  recall  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  or  even  in  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

Its  fallacy  is  as  apparent  as  its  rigidity.  That  which  conforms  to  an 
original,  by  this  very  fact  is  secondary,  and  not  primary.  It  does  not 
usually  pos.sess  either  the  creative  vitality  or  the  authority  of  the  original, 
to  which  it  conforms.  If  the  original  were  not  of  a  higher  type  than  it  is, 
there  would  be  no  virtue  in  its  conforming  to  the  original  as  a  standard. 
If  we  suppose  that  the  will  of  a  spiritual  man  conforms  itself  throughout 
to  the  will  of  the  Lord,  we  do  not  therefore  say.  that  the  human  will, 
which  conforms,  "must  have  the  same  value  and  authority,"  as  the 
Divine  will,  to  which  it  conforms. 

Moreover,  the  premises  quoted  are  falsified.  They  are  correctly  quoted 
a  little  earlier"*"  thus,  "We  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  the 
Unaltered  Aug.sburg  Confession  in  its  original  sense  as  throughout  in 
conformity  with  the  pure  truth."  But  this  author,  after  stating  that 
these  vords  point  to  the  very  letter  of  the  Symbol  and  make  no  distinction 
between  form  and  substance,  in  his  proof  of  his  assertion,  omits  the 
vital  word  doctrines,  and  conveys  the  impression  that  not  only  the  doc- 
trines but  'the  very  words,'  and  the  outer  historical  form  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  are  binding  on  this  general  body  to  the  full  extent  to  which 
those  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  Scripture  find 
the  latter  binding  upon  themselves. 


""  pp.  etO,  611. 
"=p.  610. 


cxxx  INTRODXJCTION 

Are  not  students  to  be  pitied  who  must  form  tlieir  conception  of  the 
conservative  Lutheran  Church  on  the  basis  of  a  history  which  omits  or 
alters  the  crucial  word  in  a  symbolical  statement  of  an  adversary?  Can 
it  be  that  young  men  are  being  seriously  taught  that  a  large  body  of 
Lutherans  in  this  land  is  pledged  and  bound  down,  not  only  to  the  infal- 
libility of  the  confessions, — that  it  is  impossihlc  for  them  to  err;  but  also 
to  their  verhal  inspiration? 

Perhaps,  on  the  whole,  the  most  remarkable  fact  in  The 
Confessional  History  is  its  laying  the  responsibility  of  doc- 
trinal controversy,  dissension  and  difference  in  the  Luth- 
eran Church  of  America  at  the  door  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord. 

This  statement  is  found  in  the  chapter  on  Subscription  to  the  Formula 
of  Concord  on  p.  507.  It  runs  as  follows :  "Certain  it  is  that  the  doctrinal 
controversies  that  have  distracted  and  sepai'ate<l  the  Lutherans  in  America 
have  sprung  out  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  ..."  So  that  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  the  Definite  Platform,  the  influence  of  Presbyterianism, 
Methodism,  and  of  the  Reformed  Church,  the  writings  of  Dr.  S.  S. 
Schmucker,  the  doctrine  of  Predestination,  the  doctrine  of  the  Ministry 
as  held  by  Walther,  Gi-abau,  and  Lohe,  and  other  theological  questions 
outside  the  Formula,  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  controversies  in 
American  Lutheranism  ;  but  rather  all  differences  have  sprung  out  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

The  conclusion  of  "The  Confessional  History,"  without 
any  general  outlook,  or  any  suggestion  of  hope,  or  any 
proposal  for  the  future,  is  dispiriting.  We  are  not  told 
whether  "the  Augsburg  Confession  (Altered),"  or  any 
document  substituted  for  it  in  the  days  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  has  been  "an  instrument  of  concord  in  the  Luth- 
eran Church  in  America,"  but  we  are  informed  that  the 
Book  of  Concord  has  not  been  such  an  instrument,"'  al- 
though one  of  the  general  bodies  that  accepts  it  "has  been 
very  pacific,  and  tries  to  act  as  a  peacemaker  between  other 
Lutheran  Synods  that  have  not  yet  come  to  see  eye  to  eye'* 
(p.  623).  Beyond  the  critical  picture  of  harm  and  ruin, 
and  this  single  synodical  attempt  to  stay  the  same,  no  con- 
structive ideal  has  been  set  up  toward  which  the  Church  of 
the  future  may  hopefully  look  forward. 


p.    (ill 


INTEODFCTION  cxxxi 

And  how  can  there  ever  be  any  hope  for  Lutheranism, 
with  its  doctrine  of  the  Word,  if  its  Confessions  are  but  a 
clog  about  its  neck?  He  is  not  a  Lutheran  who  regards 
the  innermost  mystery  of  God's  Word  as  a  clog.  We  sub- 
ordinate the  light  of  reason  and  the  law  of  science  to  God's 
Word.  God's  Word  is  the  only  law  of  Christian  truth."" 
He  who  abides  completely  within  God's  Word,  "shall  know 
the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  him  free.'""'  Confes- 
sions of  Faith  and  Love  are  a  clog  only  to  him  who  doubts, 
or  who  does  not  heartily  love.  Men  are  incapable  of  joy- 
ous Confession  who  do  not  unreservedly  love  and  believe. 

There  is  Jiope  for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  future  in 
this  land,  not  because  of  any  present  outlook,  or  because 
the  Lutheran  Church  seems  to  have  a  peculiar  mission  in 
this  country,  or  because  other  denominations  have  much  to 
learn  from  her,  but  because  the  principle  within  and  be- 
neath her,  is  the  principle  of  the  Person  and  Redemption 
of  Christ  her  Lord,  revealed  in  the  Scripture  and  witnessed 
unto  in  her  Confession,  before  all  the  world,  in  contrast  to 
errors  ancient  and  modern,  in  every  age. 


'<«John  17  :  17. 
losjoba  8 ;  31-32, 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  PEINCIPLE 

AND 

THE  CONFESSIONS 

OF 

THE   LUTHERAN    CHURCH 


CHAPTER   I. 
WHAT  IS  THE  QUESTION? 

The   Question   Concerning   Confessions— The    Union    Question — The    Lutheran 
Question — The  Twentieth  Century  Atmosphere — Incidental  Questions. 

SHOULD  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  be  loyal  to 
her  Confessional  Principle  and  abide  by  her  Confes- 
sions ?  This  is  not  a  new  question,  but  the  grave  and 
eventful  problem  of  three  and  a  quarter  centuries  ago  which 
has  sprung  up  in  this  new  land  and  in  this  new  century, 
destined  by  Providence  as  the  seat  of  the  greatest  unfolding 
of  the  true  Evangelical  Faith  of  the  living  Gospel,  in  the 
midst  of  the  impressive  external  strength  of  a  false  Catholi- 
cism and  the  mighty  moral  emphasis  of  a  federation  of  Re- 
formed protestantism,  on  the  one  hand ;  and,  on  the  other, 
the  looseness  of  a  fitful  evangelism  and  the  broadness  of  a 
sheer  rationalism. 

Though  the  Confessional  question  now  upon  us  is  the  old 
one,  it  is  also  always  new.  It  was  raised,  but  not  settled, 
in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  It  was  accentuated  to  a  formal 
and  logical  close  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.     It  decayed, 

1 


2  THE    LL'TIIERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

by  way  of  reaction,  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  It  sprang 
up  again  under  a  new  synthesis  in  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
And  it  is  liere  once  more  as  a  reaction  of  the  old  faith  against 
the  spirit  of  uniouisui,  which  has  taken  on  a  wider  form  than 
ever,  in  the  Twentieth  Century.  Whatever  this  book  may  or 
may  not  establish,  its  material  will  probably  convince  its 
readers  that  the  question  of  unionism  and  confederation 
to-day,  is  the  question  that  arose  in  the  fountain-head  of 
Protestantism,  the  question  of  Marburg, — hidden  partially 
in  Augsburg, — the  question  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  of  the 
Leipzig  Interim,  and  of  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

The  widest  form  of  unionism,  which  may  be  defined  as  a 
desire  for  amalgamation  into  one  earthly  communion,  or  for 
alliance  or  federation,  of  religious  organizations  of  difi'erent 
faiths,  at  the  compromise '  of  custom,  government  or  prin- 
ciple, in  order  to  secure  solidarity  of  life  and  action,  has 
been  seriously  proposed  by  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  who  origi- 
nally was  set  into  the  foregroimd  of  favor  by  the  German 
Emperor.  Delitzsch's  proposal  is  the  uniting,  on  the  basis 
of  the  Scriptures,  of  the  three  great  occidental  faiths,  viz., 
Judaism,  Christianity  and  Mohammedanism.  The  only 
thing  that  need  be  sacrificed,  according  to  Delitzsch,  in  this 
scheme  of  union  is  the  divinity  of  Christ,  ^  and  the  advantage 
to  be  gained  is  an  equality  or  a  preponderance  of  our  western 
racial  faith  as  over  against  all  oriental  religions.  The  Par- 
liament of  Religions,  held  some  years  ago  at  Chicago,  was 
suggestive  of  the  possibility  of  a  similar,  but  wider-principled 
union,  which  included  even  oriental  faiths. 

Several  other  proposals  of  union,  almost  equally  chimer- 
ical, but  emanating  from  responsible  ecclesiastical  sources, 
such  as  the  Lambeth  Conference,  or  the  Pope  at  Rome,  or 
the  now  defunct  Evangelical  Alliauce,  and  the  far  more  prac- 


'  This  is  often  not  admitted,  but  it  occurs  practically  at  every  union  service, 
in  every  union  religious  effort,  and  in  a  majority  of  union  moral  movements. 

=  Compare  Luther:  "  Und  steur  des  Papsts  und  Tiirken  Mord,  Die  Jesum 
Christum,  deinen  Sohn,  WoHen  sturtzen  von  deinem  ThroBt" 


Tilt:    QUESTION.  3 

tical  and  often  quite  evangelical  Federation  of  Protestant 
Churches,  have  limited  themselves  to  a  reunion  of  parts  of 
Christendom  alone. 

Within  the  Protestant  world  itself,  the  questions  of  con- 
fessionalism  and  union,  which  are  co-respondents  in  this 
aspect,  have  come  up  ceaselessly  within  the  life  of  the  last 
generation.  Xot  only  have  Presbyterians,  and  Presby- 
terianism  and  Congregationalism,  and  Congregationalism  in 
connection  with  various  other  smaller  denominations,  and 
the  several  branches  of  the  Reformed  Church,  been  agitated 
by  it ;  but  a  growing  sentiment  and  great  organizations  for 
interdenominational  confession  and  work,  and  for  common 
work  on  undenominational  ground,  in  such  fields  as  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  Foreign  Missionary 
enterprises,  and  the  work  of  spiritual  salvation  and  physical 
rescue  among  the  fallen,  the  foreigner,  and  other  elements 
that  form  the  material  of  "  settlement  work,"  have  made 
tremendous  progress. 

Within  the  Lutheran  Church  the  same — quite  laudable  and 
noble — spirit  and  desire  to  hold,  cherish,  maintain  and  ex- 
press a  common  faith  and  a  common  worship,  to  live  within 
common  forms  of  communion  and  congregational  fellowship, 
and  to  progress  in  a  common  spirit  by  means  of  a  common  ac- 
tivity, have  manifested  themselves  in  many  ways. 

The  most  universal  of  these  movements  in  our  communion 
is  the  International  Lutheran  Conference,  which  originated 
in  the  land  of  the  Peformation,  and  which  in  the  midst  of 
many  difficulties  has  maintained  at  least  a  precarious  exist- 
ence. The  attempts  to  furnish  the  American  Church  a  com- 
mon Lutheran  service,  a  conmion  translation  of  the  Catechism, 
to  recognize  common  limitations  in  Home  and  Foreign  Mis- 
sion work,  and  to  be  helpful  rather  than  harmful  to  each 
other  in  these  fields ;  the  calling  into  being  of  a  common 
organization,  national  in  scope,  of  the  young  people  of  the 
Church;  the  attempt  to  provide  common  courses  of  instruc- 
tion in  the  schools  of  the  Church,  and  to  unite  and  combine 


4  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

publications  within  the  Church ;  the  holding  of  General  Con- 
ferences between  the  three  older  general  bodies  of  the  Church  ; 
and  of  Inter-synod  ical  (Conferences  between  the  three 
vounffer  and  more  Germanic  bodies  of  the  Church,  all  indi- 
cate  how  deeply  the  spirit  of  union  and  the  desire  for  uni- 
fication dwell  within  the  heart. 

Union  and  unification  are  desirable  things,  to  be  sought 
ceaselessly,  and,  like  peace,  are  Scripturally  enjoined,  so 
far  as  they  are  possible ;  and  they  become  the  antithesis  and 
antagonist  of  confessional  ism  only  when  the  means  through 
which  they  intend  to  attain  their  object  lie  in  the  compro- 
mise of  a  principle  of  faith.  Any  union  or  unification 
which  can  be  harmoniously  accomplished  without  sacrifice 
of  the  faith,  in  any  of  its  principles,  should  be  commended 
and  carried  out. 

In  this  general  atmosphere  of  our  land  and  century,  and 
during  the  attempt  of  Church  bodies  to  approach  each 
other,  the  question  of  The  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  of  their  relation  to  a  true  Lutheranism,  has 
arisen. 

It  is  a  question  which  will  never  be  settled  until  it  is  set- 
tled right,  on  the  basis  of  the  real  character  of  the  original 
foundation,  and  in  recognition  of  the  light  thrown  upon  it 
by  four  centuries  of  history, — unless  it  be  settled,  as  Schaff 
intimates,'  by  the  absorption  of  the  Lutherans  of  this  land 
in  and  under  the  Reformed  principle. 


*  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  213. 


CHAPTER   II. 

HOW  IS  THE  QUESTIO^^  TO  BE  DISCUSSED? 

From  Centre  or  simply  from  Periphery  ? — Not  a  Question  of  Subscription,  Name, 
Party,  or  Technical  Acceptance — A  Question  of  l>oyal  Maintenance  of  the  Com- 
plete Principle  of  the  Faith — There  is  such  a  Faith,  not  merely  Documentary, 
but  Actual. 

THE  discussion  of  the  relation  of  true  Lutheranism  to 
the  Symbolical  Books  will  drift  into  externals,  and 
go  down  in  confusion,  unless  it  be  begun  and  maintained 
from  the  right  point  of  view.  To  us  the  fundamental,  and 
not  any  incidental  point  of  view,  is  the  right  one.  There- 
fore it  is  necessary  for  us  to  keep  clear  in  mind  what  the 
question  in  point  is  and  what  it  is  not. 

The  controversy  is  not  at  bottom  a  controversy  covering 
the  quality  or  duty  of  confessional  subscription,  nor  con- 
cerning adherence  to  certain  historical  documents,  nor  an 
investigation  as  to  compatibility  of  temperament  between  ^le- 
lanchthon  and  Luther,  nor  a  strife  as  to  who  legitimately 
may  lay  claim  to  the  name  Lutheran,  or  as  to  who  may 
honorably  term  themselves  the  followers  of  Luther;  nor  a 
question  as  to  how  best  to  deal  with  those  Christians  that  are 
non-Lutherans. 

But  at  bottom  this  controversy  is  one  as  to  the  nature  and 
constitution  of  the  Church's  true  religion  and  Faith,  and  as 
to  her  M'illingness  to  stand  for  this,  where  need  be,  in  its 
complete  expression.  The  controversy  is  not  one  of  narrow- 
ness or  broadness ;  of  parts  or  parties  or  partizanship ;  of 

5 


6  TEE   LUTHEBAX   CONFESSIONS. 

the  correct  ascription  of  names  or  the  proper  weight  of 
numbers ;  but  it  is  a  controversy  as  to  the  principle  itself/ 

The  other  questions  which  seem  to  be  connected  with  the 
fundamental  question  of  principle,  viz. :  Who  is  entitled  to 
bear  the  name  ?  What  kinds  of  Lutherans  are  in  the  majority  ? 
How  many,  if  any,  Confessions  must  be  subscribed  by  a 
good  Lutheran  ?  Should  the  minimum  or  the  maximum  his- 
torical  Confessional  position  be  required  ?  Is  it  possible  for 
the  Church  to  demand  a  subscription  to  some  one  of  the 
Confessions  as  a  public  and  official  necessity,  and  to  en- 
courage or  permit  subscription  to  others  privately  ?  Is  any 
one  Confession  sufficient  as  the  basis  of  the  Church  ?  Should 
this  one  Confession  be  the  first  or  the  last,  the  shortest  or  the 
longest,  the  most  generic  or  the  most  specific  ?  Which 
edition  of  which  Confession  should  be  the  one  to  be  insisted 
on,  or  may  various  editions  be  disregarded  ? — these  questions, 
though  they  be  important,  and  may  indeed  be  decisive  in 
their  time  and  place,  are  really  incidental  to  the  great  issue 
which  is  now  before  the  Church ;  and,  by  being  placed  in 
the  foreground  as  the  leading  matter,  often  tend  to  ob- 
scure it. 

The  real  question  before  the  Church  to-day,  as  in  the 
days  of  Christ,  as  in  the  days  of  Augsburg  and  a  half  cen- 
tury later,  and  every  century  since,  is  as  to  our  thorough 
adherence,  our  open  acceptance,  and  our  loyal  defence  of 
the  great  Principle  in  all  its  integrity,  and  against  all  coun- 


'  The  great  error  of  Schaff  in  his  Creeds  of  Christendom,  and  of  many 
liberal  Lutherans,  is  the  assumption  that  Lutheranism  is  a  form  of  Protes- 
tantism colored  by  the  personal  opinions  of  two  reformers,  Luther  and 
Melanchthon.  Lutheranism  is  the  old  faith  of  the  Church,  catholic  and 
evangelical,  protestant  only  as  to  Roman  errors,  founded  on  the  teaching  of 
Scripture,  without  the  admixture  of  hujnan  reason.  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
as  the  authors  of  "  personal  opinions,"  have  no  more  to  do  with  Lutheranism 
than  the  crack  of  the  Liberty  Bell  has  to  do  with  our  national  liberty  itself. 

Compare  Jacobs :  "  The  unity  of  the  Church  does  not  consist  in  sub- 
scription to  the  same  Confessions,  but  in  the  acceptance  and  teaching  of  the 
same  doctrines.  Where  the  doctrines  of  the  Confessions  are  not  believed,  it  is 
the  solemn  duty  of  the  person  who  questions  them  to  testify  on  all  occasions 
against  them,  instead  of  seeking  to  hide  his  dissent  under  an  ambiguous  or 
indefinite  formula."  Also,  "  It  is  not  subscription  to  Confessions  of  faith 
that  is  desired  so  much  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Confessions." — Distinctive  Doc- 
trines of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States,  p.   94. 


HOW   TO    BE   ANSWERED.  7 

terfeits,  resemblances  and  approximations  coming  up  from 
a  temporary  or  divergent  basis. 

The  question  is  this:  "Are  we  ready  to  accept,  adhere  to, 
defend  and  carry  out  completely  the  teaching,  on  the  Word 
and  Sacraments,  of  our  Church  as  found  in  any  or  all  of  her 
Confessions  ?"  If  so,  any  one  Confession  will  be  sufficient 
for  us  (that  is,  in  our  informal  relations  to  each  other,  and 
not  considering  (piestions  that  come  to  us  from  a  legal  in- 
sistence without)  ;  if  not,  even  a  cpiasi  or  a  complete  formal 
acceptance  of  all  the  Confessions  will  not  suffice. 

In  the  latter  case,  discussion,  instead  of  bringing  forth, 
promulgating  and  defending  inner  conviction,  will  degen- 
erate into  skirmishes  for  position  and  advantage,  and  into 
quibbling  over  points,  technical,  historical  and  practical, 
which  do  not  touch  the  heart  of  the  issue. 

Ecclesiastically,  the  great  question  at  the  present  moment 
in  the  English  Lutheran  Church  in  America  is  as  to  the 
need,  the  legitimacy  and  the  authority  of  the  Symbolical 
Books  of  our  Church.  But  underlying  this  is  the  great 
question  of  all  ages  as  to  the  willingness  of  the  Church,  or 
of  any  parts  of  it  in  question,  to  accept,  to  proclaim  and 
maintain,  and  to  loyally  defend  the  complete  Principle  of 
which  the  Symbolical  Books,  any  one  of  them  singly,  or  all 
together,  are  but  a  documentary  exposition. 

It  is  a  question  as  to  the  living  faith  itself,  and  not  as  to 
any  circumstantialities  of  its  external  record,  or  of  any  of 
the  various  modes  in  which  it  became  crystallized  into  his- 
tory. 

There  is  a  real,  living,  whole  and  full-orbed  Lutheran 
Faith — the  reflex  of  the  living  divine  Word, — which  appears 
in  the  visible  Church  only  in  historical,  and  therefore  tem- 
poral, and  incomplete  forms,  and  which  is  more  than  and 
above  the  forms,  but  of  which  the  forms  are  the  only  orig- 
inal expression ;  and  the  question  is  concerning  our  posses- 
sion of  this  full  Faith.  As  in  the  Lord's  Supper  it  is  not 
a  question  of  this  or  that  as  to  bread  or  wine,  but  it  is  the  ques- 


8  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tion  of  what  we  receive  iu,  with  and  under  the  bread  and 
the  wine ;  so  is  the  Confessional  question  fundamentally  a 
question  of  the  real  Faith ;  i.  e.,  it  is  a  germinal  question, 
and  not  one  of  the  outer  historical  investiture  in  which  it  has 
been  handed  down  to  us. 

As  the  main  question  concerning  the  Scripture  is  always 
and  in  every  age  a  question  of  the  living  Word  of  God,  and 
not  any  of  the  subordinate  matters  of  criticism  or  history  in 
which  it  has  manifested  itself  in  the  successive  layers  of  re- 
corded revelation,  but  of  the  complete  Word  itself,  and  our 
full  acceptance  and  defence  of  it  by  faith,  so  is  the  Confes- 
sional question  one  of  our  real  Faith  itself,  and  not  of  at- 
tendant documents  or  of  selection  of  single  historical  mo- 
ments, or  men,  or  phraseologies,  to  which  our  adherence  is  to 
be  pinned  as  to  a  mere  external  touchstone  in  place  of  a 
spiritual  fact. 


CHAPTER   III. 
WHAT  ARE  COXFESSIOXS? 

Scripture  Assimilated  and  Pulsating  in  the  Church — Scripture  Condensed  Into 
Public  Standards — The  Common  Principle  of  the  Church's  Faith — The  Common 
Framework  of  the  Church's  Doctrine— The  Common  Mark  of  the  Church's 
Truth — The  Common  Flag  of  the  Church's  Loyalty. 

CONFESSIONS  are  Scripture  digested,  assimilated,  and 
beating  in  the  life  pulses  of  the  Church. 

Pulse-beats  of  Scripture  are  they,  come  up  out  of  the  be- 
lieving Church's  heart  into  free,  public,  courageous,  joyous 
and  solemn  utterance.  As  thus  boni  out  of  the  heart  of  a 
believing  Church,  they  incarnate  the  faith  of  man  in  visible 
form,  even  as  God  incarnated  His  own  Son  in  the  visible 
form  of  our  own  flesh,  and  His  own  Word  in  the  visible  form 
of  written  Scripture.  • 

They  differ  from  Scripture  in  origin — they  are  human; 
in  native  . strength — they  are  not  original,  but  reflex;  in 
order — they  are  not  historical,  but  doctrinal ;  and  in  com- 
pass— they  are  comparatively  brief,  as  a  summary.  They 
agree  with  Scripture  in  substance  and  in  intent ;  and  spread 
its  truth  by  echo,  by  reflection,  refraction  and  transmis- 
sion. Confessions  are  "  a  witness  and  a  declaration  of  the 
Faith  as  to  how  at  any  time  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  been 
understood  and  explained  in  the  Church  of  God."  ^ 

Confessions  are  the  answer  of  earth  to  the  revelation  from 


'  Like  all  things   in  the  Church,  except  Word   and   Sacrament,   very  human. 

^Formula  of  Concord,  Intro.,  8.  Cp.  also  Walch,  Int.  in  Libros  St/m- 
boUcos,  p.  16,  section  4.  Cp.  Luther.  15.33  :  "  Wir  haben  nicht  Mum  Mum 
gesagt,  und  unter  den  Hiitlein  gespielet,  sondern  da  stehet  unser  helle,  diirr, 
frei   Wort  ohn   alles  tunckeln   und   mausen." 


10  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSION H. 

Heaven.  They  are  the  response  of  faith  to  the  testing  ques- 
tions of  the  Lord,  Who  is  still  present  as  of  old,  not  visibly, 
])ut  in  Word  and  Sacrament ;  and  is  still  guiding  the  word  and 
deed  of  His  Church  through  a  multitude  of  dangers.  They 
are  not  the  word  of  the  populace  or  the  cry  of  the  moment ; 
but  in  form,  matter  and  purpose  they  are  weighty,  thoughtful 
and  representative  or  common  declarations,  embodying  the 
faith  of  multitudes  and  generations,  and  bearing  forward  the 
best  and  greatest  witness  of  an  age  come  to  climax  into 
the  teachings  and  faith  of  all  following  ages. 

They  are  "  Witnesses,  in  what  manner  and  at  what  places 
the  purer  doctriiie  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  was  pre- 
served." '  They  thus  constitute  the  public  standards  of 
the  Church's  faith ;  or,  as  the  Formula  of  Concord  declares, 
they  are  best  defined  as  "  brief,  plain  confessions,  regarded 
as  the  unanimous^  universal  Christian  Faith  and  Confession 
of  the  orthodox  and  true  Church."  * 

They  are  not  the  source  of  light — the  sun  is  Scripture 
itself;  but  they  are  great  and  public  lamps  of  life,  lit  from 
the  sun,  that  illumine  our  pathway  through  the  intricate 
forestland  of  faith  and  life.  ' 

Confessions  are  the  one  common  and  abiding  inner  unity 
left  to  the  Protestant  Church.  "  For  thorough,  permanent 
unity  in  the  Church  it  is  before  all  things  necessary  that  we 
have  a  comprehensive,  unanimously  approved  summary  and 
form,  wherein  are  brought  together  from  God's  Word  the 
common  doctrines,  reduced  to  a  brief  compass,  which  the 
Churches  that  are  of  the  true  Christian  religion  acknowledge 
as  confessional."" 

They  spring  from  conscience,  not  from  custom ;  yet  they 
come  from  the  past,  and  reach  into  the  future.  Though  only 
a  fixed  declaration  of  a  common  faith,  they  are  neverthe- 


^  Formvla  of  Concord,  2. 

'  It.,  3.  (  "  Sunt  ConfessionPR  publicjp  Ecrlpsi;?  ....  non  ut  principium 
fldei  generandffi  sint,  sed  ut  ex  Scriptura  explicent  credenda." — Carpzov,  Isag. 
in  Lib.  Err!.   Lnth.  Siimb.  Lip.   1675,  p.   2.) 

6/t).,   Sol.   Decl.,    1. 


VEFIXITION.  11 

less  the  one  common  embodiment  and  sum  of  the  principle 
which  holds  together  the  Church  and  the  men  in  it.  "  We 
have  a  unanimously  received,  common  form  of  doctrine, 
which  our  Evangelical  Churches  together  and  in  common 
confess;  from  and  according  to  which,  because  it  has  been 
derived  from  God's  Word,  all  other  writings  should  be 
judged." ' 

This  unanimous  and  common  confessional  form  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  not  composed  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion alone,'  but  "  we  have  embodied  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, Apology,  Smalcald  Articles,  Luther's  Large  and  Small 
Catpchisms,  as  the  sum  of  our  Christian  doctrine,  for  the 
reason  that  these  have  been  always  and  everywhere  regarded 
as  containing  the  common,  unanimously  received  understand- 
ing of  the  Churches." '  The  Formula  of  Concord  further 
says:  "  Since  the  chief  and  most  enlightened  theologians  of 
that  time  subscribed  them,  and  all  evangelical  Churches  and 
schools  have  cordially  received  them.  As  they  also,  as  be- 
fore mentioned,  were  all  written  and  sent  forth  before  the 
divisions  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
arose,  and  then  because  they  were  held  as  impartial,  and 
neither  can  nor  should  be  rejected  by  any  part  of  those  who 
have  entered  into  controversy,  and  no  one  who  is  true  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  will  complain  of  these  writings,  but 
will  cheerfully  accept  and  tolerate  them  as  ivitnesses."  ' 

Confessions  are,  therefore,  the  sum  of  Scripture,  its  very 
pulse-beat  or  accent,  in  time,  as  the  true  Church,  in  her 
Witness,  divinely  commanded,  best  knows  how  to  utter  it. 
Confessions  are  the  Scripture  itself  worked  up  by  the  be- 
lieving Church's  convictions  amid  the  tests  of  human  life 
and  experience,  and  under  the  same  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  inheres  in  the  ofRce  of  the  preacher  in  bearing 
witness  to  Christ  in  the  pulpit, — into  Common  Principles 


^Formula  of  Concord,  10.  ^  Book  of  Concord,  p.  537. 

^Formula    of    Concord,    Sol.    Decl.,    11. 


12  TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

of  Faith,  on  which  the  Churches  can  rest,  and  in  which  the 
Church  of  the  future  can  find  anchorage. 

Confessions  are  the  under-framework  of  the  Church — 
the  spars  and  the  ribs  of  the  ship,  resting  upon  and  extend- 
ing from  a  centre  of  strength,  the  Word,  to  give  protec- 
tion to  any  point  in  the  circumference,  the  Church,  where 
there  may  be  weakness  and  consequent  possibility  of  wreck. 
Confessions  are  the  rails ;  and,  If  +  us  understand  well,  not 
the  roadbed  or  the  solid  rock,  on  which  the  ecclesiastical 
trains  run.  The  bed  is  Scripture  and  the  rock  is  Christ, 
and  they  determine  the  direction ;  but  the  rails  are  of  human 
workmanship,  condensing  the  roadbed  to  an  effective  point, 
and  giving  guidance,  protection  and  impetus  to  the  moving 
trains  above. 

Common  Principles  of  Faith  in  a  Church,  within  and 
beneath,  correspond  to  and  are  the  presupposition  of  a  com- 
mon expression  in  a  common  worship  and  in  common  work, 
or  in  a  common  name,  above  and  without.  The  Common 
Faith  and  the  Conmion  Service  ^  are  both  elaborated  in  the 
Church  on  the  basis  of  Scripture:  the  one  is  for  the  estab- 
lishment and  strengthening  of  the  mind  and  soul  within; 
the  other,  for  the  expression  of  the  lips  without.  Scripture 
itself  will  not  serve  either  as  a  form  of  public  Confession 
or  as  a  form  of  public  worship,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
Scripture  has  been  given  to  us  in  historical  and  not  in  doc- 
trinal or  liturgical  form. 

This,  among  other  things,  means  that  the  Word  of  God 
in  Scripture  is  so  connected  with  local  incident  and  detail, 
and  extends  over  so  many  lifetimes,  that  its  very  bulk  would 
prevent  it  from  being  used,  without  selection,  either  to  con- 
fess or  to  worship.  Biit  the  selective  use  of  Scripture  in 
Confession  or  in  worship  brings  about  a  systematic  form  of 
both,  a  form  that  has  been  moulded  into  a  unity  in  passing 
throun^h  the  Christian  mind  and  consciousness. 


^  The   Common    Faith    is    an   essential  ;    the    Common    Service    is    a    common 
result  of  Christian  liberty. 


DEFINITION.  13 

It  is  true  that  there  are  some  Christians,  such  as  the  old- 
line  Presbyterians,  who  try  to  exclude  the  selective  process 
in  worship,  and  who  will  sing,  for  instance,  only  the  Psalms 
of  David,  and  not  the  hymns  in  which  Christian  truth  has 
been  remoulded  by  passing  through  hearts  that  have  been 
inspired  by  the  Gospel ;  but  these  people  are  few  in  our  day, 
and  we  do  not  believe  that  there  are  many  who  will  insist 
that  either  a  common  Confession  or  a  common  Worship  may 
not  pass  through  Christian  experience  in  receiving  its  final 
form,  but  that  it  must  be  plucked  crudely  and  mechanically 
from  the  external  phraseology  of  Scripture.  Xo ;  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Word  it  is  not  only 
our  right,  but  it  becomes  our  duty,  in  developing  the  Church 
of  Christ,  to  bring  system  and  order  into  both  our  faith  and 
worship,  and  not  to  leave  these  lie  simply  in  the  foundation 
as  they  are  given  to  us  in  Scripture. 

Both  the  Confession  and  the  Order  of  Service  are,  there- 
fore, historically  and  genetically  a  stage  higher  in  the  build- 
ing of  the  Church  than  the  Scripture  itself.  They  are  not 
more  valuable  than  Scripture,  and  their  construction,  unlike 
the  Scripture,  is  human  in  its  combining  elements ;  but  so 
far  as  they  are  Scriptural,  the  power  of  the  Scripture  in  them 
gives  them  a  more  pointed  and  useful  form  for  the  purpose 
for  which  they  are  intended,  than  that  of  the  Scripture 
itself,  which,  like  nature,  is  a  great  undistributed  mine  or 
quarry  from  which  the  materials  are  to  be  taken  for  the 
construction  of  all  forms  of  truth  through  all  ages.  Sys- 
tematically, though  not  intrinsically,  the  Confessions  rise — 
like  the  house  described  by  the  Apostle  as  being  built  hu- 
manly of  silver  and  gold,  with  some  hay  and  straw  and 
stubble — above  the  foundation  itself.  The  foundation  of  the 
Confession,  i.  e.,  Scripture,  determines  every  line  and  meas- 
urement and  angle  in  the  house.  But  the  house  is  an  elabo- 
ration, not  useless,  but  necessary,  of  the  foundation. 

The  Common  Principles  which  brace,  uphold  and  protect 
the  Church,  and  the  Common  Worship  and  activities  in  which 


11  THE    LU 2  RERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  Principles  are  manifested,  consequently  rise  in  proper 
order,  and  in  God's  own  intended  historical  development, 
upon  the  foundation.  The  religion  of  our  age  is  not  a  sud- 
den and  independent  result  effected  by  an  abrupt  break  with 
the  past;  but  it  is  connected  stone  by  stone  with  all  that  has 
gone  before,  from  the  first  day  of  God's  revelation,  and 
especially  from  the  fulness  of  time  in  Christ,  up  to  the  pres- 
ent moment.  Both  the  Faith  and  the  Worship  have  a  his- 
torical aspect.  Genetically  they  must  both  spring  out  of 
the  history  of  the  past.  If  we  would  be  true  to  ourselves 
and  true  to  the  future,  we  must  be  real  and  vital  links  '"  con- 
necting the  past  with  the  future.  We  can  no  more  turn  Qur 
backs  upon  the  one  than  upon  the  other ;  and  the  best  of  what 
the  past  furnishes  us  both  in  faith  and  in  worship  is  to  be 
apprehended  by  us  and  passed  on,  if  it  have  reached  its 
more  final  form,  for  the  help  of  the  future. 

Thus  we  see  how  Common  Principles  of  Faith  and  a  com- 
mon expression  of  Faith  in  a  common  Order  of  Worship  are 
the  finished  product  and  express  the  reaction  of  the  preceding 
Christian  generations  of  the  Church  at  any  particular  stage 
in  its  work  upon  the  present  and  successive  generations." 

The  reactions  of  Scripture  upon  men,  in  the  course  of 
history,  constantly  bring  about  four  results.  The  first  and, 
from  a  personal  view,  the  most  important  of  these  results  is 
the  reaction  on  the  individual,  viz.,  the  salvation  of  souls. 
The  second  result  is  the  expressing  of  this  individual  sal- 
vation within  a  common  social  organization,  itself  divine 
in  origin,  which  is  the  Church.  The  third  result  is  the  ex- 
pression of  this  salvation  in  a  common  organization  of 
worship;  and  the  fourth  of  these  results  of  the  reaction  of 


'"  The  tendency  is  to  consider  the  single  link  that  glows  with  the  fire  and 
vitality  of  the  present  moment  as  of  more  import  and  value  than  all  that 
has  gone  before  and  all  that  will  follow. 

"After  writing  the  foregoing,  we  find  the  following  confirmation  of  this 
view  from  Plitt :  "  It  is  as  impossible  for  the  Church  to  be  without  a 
Confession  as  without  preaching  and  divine  service,  and  sooner  or  later  the 
summons  must  come  to  the  entire  Church  or  an  individual  part  of  it  to  give  to 
its  confession  not  only  a  clear,  but  also  an  established  and  definite  expression." 
• — Trans,  in  Jacobs  Book  of  Concord,  p.  312. 


DEFINITION.  15 

Scripture  upon  the  hearts  and  miuds  of  men  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  salvation  in  an  articulate  organism  of  Principles. 
This  organization  of  common  principles  is  our  Confession; 
and  our  Confession,  as  coming  forth  in  the  providential  de- 
velopment of  history,  is  found  in  the  form  of  our  Con- 
fessions. 

The  Confessional  principle  springs  forth  in  variety  to 
meet  the  historical,  just  as  the  principle  of  worship  springs 
forth  in  variety  to  meet  the  liturgical  occasion  (Matins, 
Vespers,  Orders  for  Baptism,  the  Holy  Communion,  etc.). 
This  variety  of  Common  Services  and  common  Confessions 
is  not  a  complication.  Our  various  Confessions  are  useful 
treasures  of  priceless  value,  and  not  impediments  to  us  in 
our  ecclesiastical  life.  The  more  powerful  a  railway  be- 
comes the  larger  is  likely  to  be  the  number  of  rails  and 
tracks,  and  the  more  numerous  are  the  switchboards  to  meet 
local  conditions.  Though  the  more  extensive  equipment 
seems  more  complicated,  yet  it  does  not  complicate;  but  it 
greatly  simplifies  and  facilitates  the  general  traffic.  Thus, 
also,  the  more  amply  a  Church  is  furnished  with  Confes- 
sions, the  more  fully  will  it  be  able  to  advance  and  protect 
itself,  from  every  doctrinal  point  of  view,  and  the  more  sim- 
ple and  progressive  will  be  its  future  course  through  the 
many  intricate  labyrinths  of  theory  and  falsehood  and  truth. 

We  must  always  remember  that  the  truth  in  God's  world 
does  not  ordinarily  lie  upon  the  surface  of  things,  but  deep 
beneath  it.  Many  experiences  of  investigators  and  great 
efforts  at  combination  on  the  part  of  human  art  and  science 
are  necessary  before  natural  truth  can  be  freed  from  the  many 
counterfeits  and  clinging  shades  of  error  and  stated  purely; 
and  still  further  effort  is  needed  before  it  can  be  reduced 
to  an  actual  working  principle. 

Very  commonly,  indeed,  isolated  principles  and  rules  of 
practice  are  easily  picked  up,  and  are  used  for  many  ages ; 
but  the  proper  combination  into  God's  own  intended  system 
of  principle  and  practice  is  not  found  until  the  ultimate  prin- 


IG  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ciples  of  the  science  itself  are  discovered.  Mere  dislocated 
truth  itself,  then,  before  it  is  worked  out  into  principles, 
and  before  these  principles  are  differentiated  from  error, 
and  are  properly  related  to  each  other  in  a  unity,  does  not 
correspond  to  tlie  Divine  reality,  and  is  not  satisfactory  to  the 
mind;  nor  does  it  afford  a  practicable  basis  for  effective 
action. 

The  saving  truth  in  religion  has  been  revealed  by  God  in 
Scripture,  and  it  is  the  only  active  and  efficient  potency 
which  the  Church  possesses.  It  gives  the  Church  life,  light 
and  power.  But,  as  given,  it  deals  with  concretes.  It  is 
not  organized  nor  connected.  It  is  the  province  of  the 
Confession  to  arrange,  to  organize  "  the  whole  counsel  of  God, 
the  whole  Word  of  God,  as  found  in  the  Scripture,  into  such 
relationships  as  will  enable  us  to  apply  it  effectively  against 
the  errors  of  any  or  every  age.  The  Confession,  then,  is 
not  the  truth  revealed  by  God,  but  God's  Word  apprehended 
and  comprehended  by  us,  which  we  have  assimilated  and 
know  how  to  utilize,  and  which  we  have  tagged  and  stamped 
as  being  in  our  possession  and  our  own  property. 

The  Confession  is  not  the  truth  unstamped,  but  bears  the 
mark  of  the  truth,  by  which  we  can  recognize  the  truth  amid  a 
thousand  other  things,  at  once. 

The  Confession  is  not  itself  the  great  cause  of  God  around 
which  we  rally,  but  it  is  the  signal,  the  standard,  the  flag, 
the  symbol,  wliich  condenses  and  gathers  into  itself  the  vari- 
ous elements  of  the  cause,  and  gives  us  a  clear  and  distinc- 
tive token  by  which,  incidentally,  we  know  ourselves  from 
others  and  others  know  us  from  themselves. 

The  Confession  thus  is  not  the  source  "  of  God's  cause, 
which  is  God's  gracious  Will  expressed  in  God's  Word,  nor 
the  essence  of  the  cause,  which  is  the  fact  of  salvation  work- 


"Some  later  Lutheran  theologians  in  America  deny  this. 

"  Libros  Symb.  non  esse  principium  sed  principiatum,  et  fldem  non  exinde 
generari,  sed  praesupponi.  Quod  enim  quia  profltetur  ac  testatur,  id  jam  jam 
In  corde  suo  habet. — Carp.  Isag.,  p.  3. 


DEFINITION.  17 

ing  itself  out  in  the  complications  of  history,  but  it  is  the 
sign  of  the  cause. 

The  merchant's  trade-mark  "  is  not  his  business  nor  its 
creative  source ;  but  if  the  trade-mark  is  a  good  one,  he  will 
stand  by  it  as  standing  for  his  business,  as  symbolizing  that 
which  is  most  valuable  and  precious  to  him  in  his  public 
activities,  as  making  known  and  giving  character  and  defi- 
niteness  to  the  nature  and  quality  of  his  business. 

The  more,  then,  we  prize  and  love  the  truth,  the  more  we 
will  repair  to  and  stand  by  and  show  honor  to  its  sign,  not 
for  the  sign's  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  that  for  which  it 
stands,  and  which  could  not  be  so  clearly  understood,  iden- 
tified, prized,  defended  and  propagated  without  it. 

It  is  only  the  extreme  individualist  who  objects  to  asso- 
ciate action  under  a  sign,  or  who  finds  the  defining  limitations 
of  the  sign  too  restrictive.  Those  who  really  believe  in  the 
cause  and  principle  of  the  associative  action  with  all  their 
heart,  hail  the  appearance  and  prominence  of  the  sign  with 
greatest  joy.  To  them  it  is  the  banner  of  the  Lord,  which 
they  bravely  follow  to  the  top  of  the  hill. 


'*  The    Confession    Is    a    less    personal,    wider    and    truer    sign-mark    of    the 
Church  than  the  signet-emblem  of  Luther,  its  greatest  modern  Confessor. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

DOES   THE   CHURCH  NEED   CONFESSIONS? 

Value  and  Use  of  Creeds — The  Great  Reality  for  which  the  Church  Confession 
Stands — Apostolic  Confession — Use  of  Confessions — They  come  in  Historical 
Form — This  is  not  a  Barrier — Spring  Forth  Under  Pressure — Are  Born,  not 
Made — Do  not  Hem  the  Church  In — The  More  Creeds  the  Better — Do  not 
Crush  Independent  Thought — Are  Fitted  to  Specific  Needs. 

THERE  are  some  Christians/  and  among  them  there  may 
be  some  Lutherans,  who  maintain  that  the  Church 
needs  no  creed,  and  that  the  mind  and  heart  of  her  members 
shoukl  be  bound  by  no  Confession  of  Faith/ 

But  these  Lutherans  are  very  few.  A  personal  creed  is 
the  mature  and  settled  expression  of  a  man's  most  serious 
thought  and  the  response  of  his  deepest  conviction  on  any 
subject  of  grave  importance  which  comes  before  him  for 
action,  and  in  which  he  has  had  real  experience.  It  is  the 
reaction  of  his  personality  on  special  problems  of  life,  worked 
out  into  permanency ;  as  a  flag,  to  easily  show  the  world  on 
what  ground  he  stands,  as  a  common  rallying  point  for  all 
who  live  under  the  same  power  of  his  own  convictions,  as  a 
sure  guide  for  him  in  critical  moments  of  hesitation  and 
uncertainty,  and  in  the  more  ordinary  walks  of  his  life; 
as  a  testimony  willingly  given  to  the  value  of  the  truths 


'  Many  of  the  sects  of  Protestantism  reject  all  creeds.  Some  of  them 
have  condemned  symbolical  books  as  a  yoke  of  human  authority  and  a 
new  kind  of  popery.  Others  go  so  far  as  to  reject  the  authority  of  Scripture 
itself,  and  to  subordinate  it  to  reason  or  to  the  inner  light. 

'  "  But  the  creeds,  as  such,  are  no  more  responsible  for  abuses  than  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  of  which  they  profess  to  be  merely  a  summary  or  an 
exposition.  Experience  teaches  that  those  sects  which  reject  all  creeds  are  as 
much  under  the  authority  of  a  traditional  system  or  of  certain  favorite  writers, 
and  as  much  exposed  to  controversy,  division,  and  change,  as  churches  with 
formal  creeds." — Schaff  Creeds  of  Christendovi,   I,  p.   9. 

18 


A    NECESSITY.  19 

under  and  for  which  he  has  lived,  and  as  the  most  precious 
legacy  of  his  thought  and  heart  which  he  would  like  to  see 
transmitted  and  used  by  his  children  even  to  the  remotest 
generation.  The  more  he  is  convinced  of  the  value  of  any 
particular  article,  truth,  or  principle  in  his  creed,  the  more 
important  will  it  become  to  him,  the  less  easily  can  he  brook 
its  slight  or  neglect  in  his  presence,  and  the  more  intense  are 
his  activities  on  its  behalf. 

There  is  not  a  business  house  whose  experience  has  not 
crystallized  into  more  or  less  of  a  creed  or  principle  of  faith 
and  rule  of  action  on  the  more  grave  problems  that  recur 
in  its  activities.  It  may  be  nothing  but  a  series  of  sen- 
tentious mottoes,  or  the  unwritten  habits  of  mind,  deeply 
graven  by  experience,  that  are  at  once  the  test  and  the  guide 
for  all  new  propositions  that  are  submitted  to  it ;  or  there 
may  be  a  more  formal  charter  and  rules  of  action  laid  down. 

Such  a  creed  may  be  a  pure  statement  of  our  apprehen- 
sion of  truth,  by  way  of  making  things  clear  and  decisive 
in  time  of  danger,  as  was  the  Declaration  of  Independence; 
or  it  may  take  the  shape  of  a  more  or  less  complete  plan  of 
action  for  the  future,  as  was  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

In  all  cases  it  is  rooted  more  or  less  deeply  in  the  historical 
experience  of  the  past ;  it  is  marked  with  the  issues  of  the 
present ;  and  it  bears  a  fruitage  more  or  less  enduring  in  the 
proportion  of  its  vitality,  largeness  and  intrinsic  summing 
up  of  valuable  truth,  for  the  future. 

We  have  to  do  with  a  greater  reality  than  the  largest 
business  or  greatest  government  on  earth.  '"  I  believe  that 
there  is  upon  earth  a  holy  assembly  and  congregation  of  pure 
saints,  under  one  head,  even  Christ,  collected  together  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  one  faith,  one  mind  and  understanding, 
with  manifold  gifts,  yet  one  in  love,  without  sects  or  schisms. 
And  I  also  am  part  and  member  of  the  same,  a  participant 
and  joint  owner  of  all  the  good  it  possesses,  brought  to  it 
and  incorporated  into  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  that  I  have 


20  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

heard  and  continue  to  hear  the  Word  of  God,  which  is  the 
means  of  entrance."^ 

This  holy  Christian  Church  in  which  the  Gospel  is  rightly 
taught  is  to  continue  forever/  and  "is  principally  a  fellow- 
ship of  faith  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  hearts;  which  fellow- 
ship has  outward  marks,  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  And  this  Church 
alone  is  called  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Church  signifies  the 
congregation  of  saints  which  have  with  each  other  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  same  Gospel  or  doctrine. 

"  We  see  the  infinite  dangers  which  threaten  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Church.  And  this  Church  is  properly  the  pillar 
of  the  truth.  For  it  retains  the  pure  Gospel,  and,  as  Paul 
says  (1  Cor.  3:  11),  the  'foundation,'  i.  e.,  the  true  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  and  faith.  And  the  writings  of  the  holy 
Fathers  testify  that  sometimes  even  they  '  built  stubble ' 
upon  the  foundation.  Most  of  those  errors  which  our  adver- 
saries defend  overthrow  faith.  Although  wicked  teachers 
go  about  in  the  Church,  yet  they  are  not  properly  the  king- 
dom of  Christ. 

"As  Lyra  testifies,  'The  Church  consists  of  those  persons 
in  whom  there  is  a  true  knowledge  and  confession  of  faith 
and  truth."" 

This  "  true  knowledge  and  confession  "  is  crystallized  in 
our  creeds.  The  creeds  of  the  Church  of  Christ  are  the  ma- 
ture reactions  of  her  heart  and  thought  on  Scripture  in 
reference  to  questions  of  faith  arising  in  the  course  of  her 
conflict  and  growth,  in  fighting  for  the  conquest  of  every 
soul  for  Christ,  and  thus,  also,  for  the  consequent  realization 
of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  whole  spirit  of  the  Word  of  Christ,  one  chief  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  gravest  responsibility  and  deepest 
joy  of  those  who  confess  Christ,  is  to  bear  witness  to  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 


^  Large  Catechism,  TI,   51.  *  Aug.    Conf.,  VII.  ^  ApoL,  4:   5. 


A    NECESSITY.  21 

In  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church  this  expression  of  con- 
Wction  was  more  spontaneous,  more  off-hand  and  occasional 
in  its  character,  as  befitted  a  new-born  and  youthful  Church ; 
but  as  the  personal  experiences  and  memories  of  fellowship 
with  Jesus  waned,  and  time  flowed  on;  as  the  truths  appre- 
hended, won,  defended  and  preserved  in  one  age  needed  to 
be  passed  on  as  a  precious  heritage  to  the  next  generation; 
as  the  Church  passed  forever  out  of  the  provincial  and  en- 
tered the  continental  and  cosmopolitan  sphere;  as  it  was 
obliged  to  compete  for  supremacy  with  the  large  problems  of 
barbarism  and  civilization,  with  the  errors  and  half-truths 
of  other  religions,  with  the  insidious  treachery  within  its  ovm 
self  (where  pride  is  always  raising  the  flag  of  rationalism, 
and  sin  the  flag  of  rebellion  and  anarchy),  it  became  more 
than  ever  necessary  to  fix  and  fasten  the  measures  of  truth 
on  which  it  had  already  maturely  reacted,  and  which  it  re- 
joiced to  confess,  as  a  standard  for  present  use  *  and  as  a 
guide  for  future  faith  and  action. 

The  use  of  Confessions,  then,  is  clear:  first.  They  sum- 
marize Scripture  for  us;  secondly.  They  interpret  it  for  the 
Church ;  thirdly.  They  bring  us  into  agreement  in  the  one 
true  interpretation,  and  thus  set  up  a  public  standard,  which 
becomes  a  guard  against  false  doctrine  and  practice  ;  fourthly, 
and  this  is  their  most  important  use,  They  become  the  me- 
dium of  instruction,  or  education,  of  one  generation  to  the 
next,  in  their  preservation,  transmission  and  communication 
through  all  future  ages  of  the  one  true  faith  of  the  Church. 

We  have  now  reached  a  general  idea  of  the  growth  of 
Confessions  in  answer  to  a  need.  Their  specific  nature  is 
conditioned  by  several  points  in  their  use  and  growth. 

In  the  first  place,  Confessions  do  not  come  to  us  in 
ideal  form,  but  they  clearly  reflect  the  particular  angle 
and  view-point  of  the  period  within  which  they  originated 


* "  That  a  symbol  originates  is  no  matter  of  chance  or  option,  but  of 
necessity.  It  is  owing  to  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  a  communion,  which 
has  also  a  historical  visible  side  to  its  existence,  and  unfolds  its  being  and 
fulfills  its  office  in  historical  life." — Plitt. 


22  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  developed.  The  clumsy  and  ont-of-date  historical  en- 
vironment in  which  they  are  clothed,  and  which  seems  to  us 
like  an  archaic  and  unnecessary  residuum,  is  what  the  an- 
cient towns  and  cities  in  ruins  are  to  the  life  of  our  Lord ; 
namely,  the  most  weighty  testimony  to  their  genuineness, 
enabling  us  to  guage  more  precisely  the  extent  and  value  of 
their  intention.  This  local  setting  is  the  brand  showing  that 
they  have  actually  passed  through  the  fiery  flame  of  history 
and  have  survived  it. 

We  should  also  bear  in  mind,  secondly,  that  the  his- 
torical element'  in  creeds,  according  to  one  of  the  great  meth- 
ods of  God  in  unfolding  law  and  life,  is  not  any  more  of  a 
barrier  to  their  acceptance  than  is  the  historical  element  in 
the  Scriptures.  God  chose  that  both  the  Scripture  and  our 
Church  Confession  of  it  should  come  into  being  at  various 
times  and  in  various  places,  and  that  they  should  appear 
subject  to  the  historical  order  under  which  the  human  race 
is  obliged  to  develop,  mature  and  fulfill  His  will. 

A  third  fact  to  be  noted  of  Confessions  is  that  those  which 
abide  spring  forth  in  periods  of  most  intense  and  searching 
spiritual  life ;  and  those  which  disappear  are  the  product  of 
a  calmer,  and  more  rationalistic,  era. 

The  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Athanasian  Creed,  the  Nicene 
Creed,  and  the  Sixteenth  Century  Confessions  of  our  Church 
are  each  and  every  one  of  them  the  product  of  the  greatest 
upheavals  and  the  most  intense  crises  in  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Creeds  are  born,  not  made.  They  are  wrung  in 
the  agony  and  anxiety  of  a  confession  at  an  epoch  fraught 
with  the  possibility  of  perilous  consequences  to  the  con- 
fessors. 

Such  creeds,  the  mighty  foundations  of  our  Fathers,  do 
not  bind  us,  but  they  plant  us  on  solid  ground.  They  do  not 
throttle,  but  they  protect  us.  They  specialize,  diiferentiate 
and  qualify  our  Church's  activity,  render  it  more  effective, 


'  Including    the    unworthy    motives    of    formulators,    and    the    unseemly    ele- 
ments of  conflict  in  assemblies  iu  which  they  were  discussed. 


A    NECESSITY.  23 

and  save  much  exjicriiiiciital  waste.  They  no  more  hem  ns 
in  and  bind  us  down  tlian  noble  old  trees,  planted  by  our 
fathers,  hem  in,  destroy  and  narrow  down  the  landscape. 

It  is  true  that  the  landmarks  are  set  for  us,  and  we  have 
not  the  liberty  of  an  endless  prairie  or  a  barren  plain;  but 
we  are  advanced  far  beyond  this  low  order  of  liberty,  merely 
formal,  to  the  possession  of  a  richly  furnished  park,  in  which 
various  generations  are  called  to  do  their  share  in  its  preser- 
vation and  perfection,  that  those  who  come  after  us  will 
have  greater  abundance  of  living  values,  though  they  find  less 
loose  and  unorganized  material  about  them  than  their  fathers. 
The  succeeding  generation  builds  upon  the  foundation  con- 
structed and  left  as  a  legacy  by  its  predecessor. 

From  this  ])oint  of  view  a  whole  clump,  a  copse  of  stately 
tree-growths,  is  more  valuable  than  only  a  single  trunk.  Of 
genuine  Creeds,  confessing  the  whole  truth  in  Christ,  we 
say,  not  the  less,  but  the  more,  the  better. 

He  who  regards  them  negatively  as  an  impediment  to  his 
own  personal  liberties,  either  cherishes  a  A'ery  lofty  estimate 
of  his  own  powers  of  mind  and  soul,  else  he  would  not  stand 
up  against  the  accumulated  wisdom  of  the  Church  for  many 
centuries;  or  he  fails  perhaps  to  realize  the  greatness  and 
momentousness  of  the  problems  before  him,  else  he  were 
willing  to  bow  in  the  reverence  of  faith,  and  work  out  the 
great  things  of  God  according  to  the  scale  and  plan  provided. 

Even  Luther  clung  desperately,  and  so  long  as  he  could, 
to  the  scale  historically  provided ;  and  for  every  theological 
fledgling  to-day  to  go  forth  into  the  Church  and  the  world, 
and  demand,  on  the  plea  of  personal  liberty,  that  he  may 
work  things  out  on  the  scale  and  plan  he  approv^es  for  the 
moment — perhaps  he  may  reject  his  present  scale  and  take  a 
totally  different  one  a  year  or  two  hence  (again  on  the  plea 
of  personal  liberty) — is  simply  a  fearful  waste  to  the 
Church,  is  the  one  great  extravagance  of  Protestantism,  and 
would  not  be  tolerated,  no,  not  for  a  moment,  in  any  sound 
and  established  business  plant  in  the  country. 


24  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

As  a  rule,  the  more  radical  and  unrestricted  and  liberty- 
loving  the  theologian,  the  more  highly  he  is  exalting  the  im- 
portance of  his  own  opinions  and  personality  as  an  in- 
dividual, and  the  less  seriously  does  he  take  himself  as  the 
servant  of  the  Lord  in  the  work  of  the  Church.  Lutherans 
should  never  forget  that  it  was  not  an  intellectual  issue  in 
the  Professor's  chair,  but  the  deadly  working  of  common 
gross  falsehood  in  the  congregation,  under  his  pastoral  care, 
that  made  Luther  a  Protestant.  Luther  was  to  the  end  of 
his  days  the  true  servant  of  the  Church,  and  the  mere  pos- 
session of  an  unfettered  liberty  to  think  what  he  pleased,  as 
a  private  personal  right,  had  little  attraction  for  him. 

"Wherefore  the  Church  can  never  be  governed  and  pre- 
served better  than  if  we  all  live  under  one  head,  Christ,  and 
all  the  bishops,  equal  in  office,  be  diligently  joined  in  unity 
of  doctrine,  faith,  sacraments,  prayer  and  works  of  love."  * 

Some  claim  against  creeds  that  they  deprive  of  intel- 
lectual liberty  and  crush  out  independent  thought.  Others, 
on  the  contrary,  claim  that  they  are  too  conducive  to  a  mere 
religion  of  the  intellect,  and  that  they  oppress  spiritual  fervor 
and  vitality. 

Both  charges  may  be  true  when  the  man  or  the  Church 
is  out  of  joint  with  the  living  Word  of  God,  but  when  the 
Word  is  truly  operative,  creeds  are  no  more  an  obstruction 
to  the  Church  or  the  man  than  are  the  guns  and  armor  of  a 
battleship  an  obstruction  to  the  engines  or  the  mariners  who 
have  the  battle  to  fight.  It  is  a  question  of  adjustment,  pro- 
portion and  proper  use,  and  of  understanding  and  co-operat- 
ing with  the  plan  of  the  vessel  as  a  whole.  The  man  who 
says,  ''Luther's  Catechism  is  confession  enough  for  me,"  is 
the  man  who  would  use  his  personal  revolver  in  an  attempt 
to  batter  down  the  defences  of  Gibralter;  and  the  man  who 
would  make  his  catechumens  commit  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord to  memory  is  the  man  who  would  use  the  great  sixteen- 
inch  gun  in  the  tower  to  fire  on  a  tiny  steam  launch.    As  there 


^Schmalkaia  Articles^  II,  9, 


A    NEC  ESS  I  TV.  25 

is  a  place  for  every  true  man,  so  there  is  a  place  for  every 
true  creed  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Xeither  the  Augsburg  Confession/  nor  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  should  be  idolized.  Xor,  on  the  other  hand,  should 
either  of  thc^m  be  rejected  by  the  Lutheran  Church.  The 
Augsburg  Confession  is  a  foundation  without  a  roof.  Solidly 
as  it  vras  laid,  the  storms  and  frosts  of  time  were  playing 
havoc  with  its  upper  and  outer  stone^s,  and  the  destruction 
might  have  been  entire,  if  the  work  had  not  been  so  labori- 
ously completed  by  the  perilous  but  finally  successful  raising 
of  a  covering  in  the  Formula  of  C^oncord.  The  foundation 
is  always  more  simple  than  the  roof  and  easier  to  stand  on, 
but  not  less  necessary.  There  are  many  children  of  nature 
who  do  not  like  to  come  in  under  a  roof,  or  see  its  need — 
until  it  rains. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  the  first  seed  that  must 
develop  under  the  test  of  wind  and  storm  into  a  full-grown 
tree.  It  was  the  first  great  confessional  reservoir  of  truth 
since  the  Athanasian  Creed,  built  to  check  the  flood  of  eccles- 
iastical degeneracy;  but  the  waters  it  contained  and  saved 
must  now  still  be  clarified  and  spread  healthfully  over  the 
fields  of  the  Church,  as  by  proper  irrigation  we  transform 
our  western  barren  plateaus  into  fertile  plains.  The  later 
Confessions  were  the  sluices  that  gave  to  every  part  of  our 
symbolical  system  its  due  portion  and  proportion  of  truth. 

What  the  Augsburg  Confession  proclaimed,  had  to  be 
worked  out  into  the  life-blood  of  the  Church.  It  was  written 
by  a  few  and  expressed  the  feeling  of  the  many,  but  the  pain- 
ful process  had  now  to  begin,  viz.,  the  transmuting  of  that 
feeling  into  solid  conviction,  and  the  conversion  of  that  con- 
viction into  the  real  but  changing  facts  of  history.  This  must 
be  done  apart  from  the  lives  of  the  two  Reformers,  for  they 
must  die  some  time. 

With  the  lives  of  the  Reformers  left  out  of  it,  the  history 


>•  Perhaps    for   tbat    reason    Providence    has    involved    the   original    edition    In 
obscurity 


26  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

sinks  from  the  mountain  to  the  valley ;  bnt  it  is  the  valley,  and 
not  the  mountain  that  gives  direction  to  the  final  current 
and  determines  in  what  direction  the  waters  shall  emerge  into 
the  plain. 


CHAPTER   V. 

DO    CONFESSIONS    CONSTRICT,   OR    DO    THEY 
CONSERVE  ? 

Is  the  Confessional  Principle  Over-Emphasized? — Back  to  the  Simplicity  of  Christ 
— Back  to  the  Bible  as  a  Creed — Why  the  Bible  can  Not  be  a  Creed — The 
Creed  is  the  Word  of  God  Condensed  and  Pointed — A  Summary  and  Just  Ex- 
hibition of  God's  Word — The  Bible  is  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Creed  is  its  Con- 
fiession — To  Judge  men  by  Creeds  is  not  Condemning  Persons,  but  Assigning 
Values — Why  Creeds  should  be  Clear-cut. 

IT  has  been  intimated  that  the  Lutherans  who  object  to  a 
creed  are  few.  Yet  there  are  many  who  feel  that  the 
matter  of  confessing  may  be  overdone.  The  sum  total 
of  the  Symbolical  Books  is  oppressive,  they  feel,  by  their 
quantity.  The  confessional  spirit  itself,  if  given  full  sway, 
tends  to  too  great  sharpness  of  edge  and  narrowness  of  blade. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  over-emphasizing  the  confessional 
side.  Our  Confession  is  fundamental  and  necessary,  but  it 
should  be  characterized  by  more  simplicity,  larger  elasticity, 
greater  moderateness  and  wider  liberality. 

The  Apostolic  and  not  the  Mediaeval  Church  should  be  its 
model.  The  simplicity  as  it  is  in  Christ,  and  not  the  com- 
plexity as  it  is  in  the  dogmaticians,  should  be  its  characteris- 
tic. Let  us  have  the  Lutheran  Confession,  but  let  us  boil  it 
do\\Ti  and  reduce  it  to  its  lowest  terms.  In  fact,  let  us  get 
back  to  the  early  and  purer  days  before  dogma  was  formu- 
lated thetically.  Why  not  greet  the  spirit  of  the  age  and  join 
in  the  cry,  "Back  to  Christ !"  Let  us  breathe  the  pure  air 
of  Scripture  itself,  and  not  the  confining  and  gloomy  at- 
mosphere of  a  historic  monastery.     Christ's  own  words  and 

27 


2S  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  Scrii^ture  itself,  are  a  better  confession  than  any  teelmical 
and  long-drawn-out  formulary  that  we  can  substitute  for  it; 
and  in  them  we  feel  that  we  can  breathe  free  and  open. 

These  words  are  strenuous,  and  frequently  very  honest. 
They  accord  with  the  modern  determination  to  be  free  and 
shake  off  every  encumbrance.  We  hesitate  to  suggest  that 
they  spring  up  so  easily,  from  the  surface  of  religious 
thought,  since  they  are  rooted  in  so  shallow  ground.' 

Is  the  plan  of  abrupt  return  to  the  simple  fountain-head 
of  faith  really  desirable  ?  Is  it  possible  ?  Can  the  Twentieth 
Century  go  back  with  a  leap,  to  the  First  ?  Can  the  adult  go 
back  to  the  ideal  days  of  childhood?  Is  our  model  the  un- 
developed child  ?  As  little  children,  we  are  to  become,  but 
not  little  children.  Has  God  been  at  work  in  His  world,  and 
in  all  these  ages,  for  nothing  ?  Can  and  should  the  stream  re- 
fuse its  wider  channels,  its  newer  filtration  beds,  and  How 
backwards  to  its  higher  and  purer  source  ? 

Because  Christ  spoke  in  the  First  Century,  are  there  no 
further  words  for  Luther  to  speak  in  the  Sixteenth  Century, 
and  no  words  for  me  to  speak  in  mine  ?  Am  I  not  to  make  the 
Bible  my  own,  for  myself  and  for  to-day,  and  to  testify  and 
confess  it  against  the  errors  that  have  been  growing  for  a 
thousand  years  in  Kome,  and  that  are  springing  up  prolific- 
ally  in  the  superficial  Christianity  around  me  ? 

All  Christendom  says  the  Bible  is  its  creed,  but  do  I 
thereby  know  what  Christendom  believes  ?  One  and  the  same 
Bible  Dictionary  contains  within  its  covers  no  less  than  a 
half-dozen  conflicting  faiths.  If  any  one  of  them  is  the  true 
faith,  the  others  are  partially  or  totally  false  faiths.  Which 
one  of  them  is  my  faith  ? 

Do  I  know  what  I  believe  without  a  creed?  Can  I  give 
every  man  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  me?  Will  the 
world  know  what  I  believe,  if  I  say  the  Bible  is  my  creed  ? 
The  Bible  says,  "There  is  no  remembrance  of  the  wise  more 


'  Compare    Conservative  Reformation,   p.    83,    which    characterizes    them   as 
"  sophistical  to  the  core." 


NOT    OPPRESSIVE.  29 

than  of  the  fool  forever."  Is  that  my  creed?  The  Bible 
says,  ''I  praised  the  dead  which  are  already  dead,  more  than 
the  living  which  are  yet  alive.  Yea,  better  is  he  than  both 
they,  which  hath  not  yet  been,  who  hath  not  seen  the  evil 
work  that  is  done  under  the  sun."  Is  that  my  creed  ?  The 
Bible  says,  '*We  are  justified  by  faith  without  the  works  of 
the  law."  It  also  says,  ^' Faith  without  works  is  dead." 
Which  of  these  is  my  creed  ?  The  Bible  says,  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  man,  and  also  says  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God;  is  it 
right  in  both  cases,  or  in  only  one  ?  and  why  ? 

The  Bible  raises  ten  thousand  questions.  If  you  answer 
any  one  of  them  in  your  own  way  only,  and  without  looking 
farther,  and  say,  "This  is  what  I  believe,"  you  are  setting  up 
a  personal  creed  of  your  own.  If  you  simply  content  your- 
self with  the  assertion,  ''The  Bible  is  my  creed,"  you  are 
leaving  unanswered  many  of  tlie  most  important  and  vital 
questions  of  faith  and  life.  And  a  Church's  answer,  more 
than  your  own,  must  be  ample  to  meet  all  questions.  When 
you  refuse  to  take  a  definite  stand  on  vital  issues  in  the 
Christian  Faith,  but  say,  "The  Bible  is  my  creed,"  are  you 
really  confessing  Christ,  or  are  you  taking  the  problems  of 
religious  life  easy,  and  evading  the  unpleasant  but  important 
doctrines  which  the  Spirit  of  God  has  brought  to  an  issue  in 
the  development  of  the  Faith  and  His  Church  in  history? 

The  religious  fanatics,  the  narrow-minded  legalists,  as 
well  as  the  most  liberal  and  the  most  loose  communions,  have 
claimed  to  make  the  Bible  their  creed.  If  there  be  no  test- 
ing of  these  claims,  and  no  framing  of  the  true  doctrine  after 
the  test  in  a  way  in  which  I  can  bravely  confess  it  before 
all  the  world,  am  I  witnessing  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  ? 

It  is  not  the  truth  in  the  printed  and  dead  page  of  the 
Bible,  but  the  truth  that  drops  like  a  living  seed'  into  my 
willing  heart,  and  which  is  applied  there  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 


The  seed  Is  the  Word  of  God." 
6 


30  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  which  springs  up  into  living  faith  that  freely  testifies  of 
itself,  and  which  makes  nie  a  believer. 

Dr.  C.  F.  Krauth  was  right  when  he  said,  "Faith  makes 
men  Christians;  but  Confession  alone  marks  them  as  Chris- 
tians." He  was  right  when  he  said,  '"^The  Scripture  is  God's 
voice  to  us,  and  the  Confession,  our  reply  of  assent  to  it." 
He  was  right  when  he  said,  "The  Bible  can  no  more  be  any 
man's  creed  than  the  stars  can  be  any  man's  astronomy." 

Even  the  Quaker  Friend  Avill  believe  that  the  words  of  the 
Bible  are  true — the  Bible  is  his  Creed — yet  he  does  not  be- 
lieve that  any  of  the  w^ords  of  the  Bible  are  more  inspired 
than  his  own  inner  light.  Even  the  Unitarian  says  he  be- 
lieves all  the  statements  in  the  Bible  concerning  .Tesus,  yet 
he  also  believes  that  there  is  no  Trinity,  and  that  our  Lord  is 
a  mere  man. 

Unless  you  carefully  put  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  on 
any  ])artieular  point,  into  such  definite  language  as  cannot  bo 
used  by  a  man  who  has  a  different  faith  than  yours,  you  are 
not  really  bearing  witness  to  your  faith.  But  such  a  clear 
and  unambiguous  statement  of  your  faith  is  a  creed. 

A  Creed  is  the  exact  substance,  or  teaching,  of  the  Bible,  as 
you  believe  it,  with  all  the  outer  shells  of  vague  language  re- 
moved. A  Creed  is  what  the  particular  "Statement  of  the 
Case"  is  as  compared  with  the  common  law  of  the  land.  A 
Creed  is  wdiat  a  filtering  and  distributing  reservoir  is  as  com- 
pared with  the  original  springs,  pure  at  the  source, but  quickly 
polluted  in  their  flow  down  the  mountain  side.  A  Creed  is 
that  which  gathers,  wdiich  selects,  which  holds  and  which 
distributes  and  applies  the  waters  of  life. 

God's  system  of  evaporation  and  condensation,  of  rainfall 
and  percolation,  of  gravity  and  syphonage  in  the  provision 
for  waters  is  good  ;  but  God  also  intended  that  we,  as  civiliza- 
tion progresses,  should  guard  the  sources,  preserve  the  waters 
and  eifectively  distribute  them  through  artificial  mains  and 
pipes,   as  an  improvement,  yea,   a  necessity  under  present 


yOT    OPPRESSIVE.  31 

conditions,  in  addition  to  His  natural  system,  of  original 
sources. 

Creeds  are  just  such  a  necessity  in  the  gathering,  selection 
and  application  of  the  true  and  saving  doctrine  found  in  the 
sources  of  the  Bible.  And  any  man  who  says,  "The  whole 
matter  is  too  cumbersome:  let  us  abandon  the  Creeds,  and 
go  back  to  the  original  wells  of  salvation,  back  to  the  old 
oaken  bucket  and  the  pitcher  that  the  Samaritan  woman 
carried  on  her  Itead  and  rested  on  the  brim  of  Jacob's  well," 
is  a  man  who  is  taking  a  step  backward  and  not  a  step  for- 
ward. 

The  world,  and  the  best  men  in  it,  the  truest  Christians 
that  have  ever  lived,  the  heroes  and  the  martyrs  of  past  ages, 
have  thought  long  and  painfully  of  the  problems  of  salvation 
and  faitli,  and  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have 
given  us  the  results  of  their  rich  but  dearly-bought  experience 
in  the  Creeds  of  the  Church ;  and  now  after  the  Lord  has  thus 
enriched  His  children  in  the  present  generation,  shall  we 
say,  "Xo.  Xo  progress  has  been  made  by  the  truth.  Let  us 
go  back  to  the  original  siiii])licity  and  the  first  beginning?" 

The  fallacy  of  all  such  reasoning  lies  here,  viz.,  in  pre- 
suming that  the  Scripture  contains  the  very  word  of  God, 
and  that  the  Creed  does  not.  The  fact  is  that  the  Scripture  is 
the  word  of  God  extended;  and  the  Creed  is  the  word  of  God 
condensed;  but  condensed  in  the  one  way  in  which  we  can  do 
it,  viz.,  by  a  universal,  churchly,  scholarly  and  providential 
human  effort.  It  is  not  true  that  Scripture  is  more  simple 
{vide  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  the  Ephesians,  the  Colos- 
sians,  the  Hebrews),  less  abstract  and  formal  {vide  the  argu- 
mentation in  Paul,  the  deep  things  in  John,  and  the  Jewish 
apprehension  and  application  of  Old  Testament  passages  in 
Matthew),  or  less  extended,  than  our  Lutheran  Confessions. 

iSTot  only  is  the  creed  the  Word  of  God  condensed,  but  it  is 
the  Word  of  God  pointed  to  defense,  confession  and  judg- 
ment. Scripture  is  a  whole  world  of  life,  and  has  many  uses, 
public  and  private,  besides  the  important  one  of  Confession; 


32  THE   LU  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

but  the  Creed  takes  the  word  of  God  in  Scripture,  as  confes- 
sional, and  applies  it  to  the  problems  of  truth  that  are  con- 
fronting our  mind,  our  thought,  our  efforts  for  Christ  and 
our  Church. 

The  Confession  is  God's  Word  pointed — it  may  be  very 
clumsily ;  but  it  is  needed  for  this  purpose  and  there  is  noth- 
ing to  take  its  place,  not  even,  as  we  have  seeii,  the  Scriptures. 

The  words  of  the  Confession  "are  not  in  themselves  as  clear 
and  as  good  as  the  Scripture  terms  ;  but  as  those  who  use  them 
can  absolutely  iix  the  sense  of  their  own  phraseology  by  a  di- 
rect and  infallible  testimony,  the  human  words  may  more 
perfectly  exclude  heresy  than  the  divine  words  do.  The  term 
'Trinity,'  for  example,  does  not,  in  itself,  as  clearly  and  as 
well  express  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  as  the  terms  of  the 
Word  of  God  do;  but  it  correctly  and  compendiously  states 
that  doctrine,  and  the  trifler  who  pretends  to  receive  the 
Bible,  and  yet  rejects  its  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  cannot  pre- 
tend that  he  receives  what  the  Church  means  by  the  word 
'  Trinity.' 

"  While  the  Apostles  lived,  the  Word  was  both  a  rule  of 
faith  and,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  confession  of  it;  but  when 
the  Canon  was  complete,  when  its  inspired  authors  were 
gone,  when  the  living  teacher  was  no  longer  at  hand  to  cor- 
rect the  errorist  who  distorted  his  word,  the  Church  entered 
on  her  normal  and  abiding  relation  to  the  Word  and  the 
Creed,  which  is  involved  in  these  words:  the  Bible  is  the 
rule  of  faith,  but  not  the  confession  of  it;  the  Creed  is  not 
the  rule  of  faith,  but  is  the  confession  of  it." ' 

It  is  the  mode  of  a  loose  and  superficial  Christianity  to- 
day to  turn  its  back  on  the  grand  old  symbols  of  the  Church, 
that  rise  like  a  range  of  Alpine  mountain  peaks  out  of  the 
valleys  of  time,  hoary  with  the  frost  of  many  a  morning,  but 
mighty  in  tlie  granite  of  many  ages,  and  green  with  the  per- 
ennial verdure  that  springs  about  their  sheltered  base.     They 


*  The    Conservative    Reformation. 


NOT   OPPRESSIVE,  33 

are  dismissed  with  the  sneer  that  they  are  only  ''human 
explanations  of  divine  doctrine."  But  they  are  no  more 
human,  because  they  have  come  in  the  heat  of  contest  and 
passion,  than  the  everlasting  hills  are  less  divine,  because  they 
were  raised  from  the  level  by  the  power  of  earthquake  and 
volcano. 

"  In  exact  proportion  as  the  Word  of  God,  opened  to  the 
soul  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  truly  and  cor- 
rectly apprehended,  just  in  that  proportion  is  the  'human 
explanation'  coincident  with  the  divine  truth.  I  explain 
God's  truth,  and  if  I  explain  it  correctly,  my  explanation 
is  God's  truth."  * 

God's  truth  in  the  Scripture,  like  God's  gold  in  the  hills, 
was  given  to  be  applied  by  men  to  the  wants  of  man. 
Whether  it  be  a  coin  in  the  purse,  or  a  watch  in  the  pocket, 
or  a  filling  in  the  tooth,  or  a  frame  for  the  lens,  or  a  pen 
with  iridium  points  for  the  flow  of  thought,  it  is,  in  all 
these  shapes  and  forms  and  degi'ees  of  fineness,  God's  o^vn 
gold.  And  if  its  fashioning  into  a  stamp,  or  standard,  for 
testing  metals,  or  resistance  to  acids,  be  done  by  human 
hands,  it  is  not  on  that  account  any  the  less  divine.  Our 
Confessions  are  God's  truth  fashioned  into  a  standard.  They 
have  been  set  together  by  hearts  and  minds  of  experience, 
in  such  graduated  and  fitting  form,  as  that  God's  Word 
can  be  applied  as  a  standard  to  the  opinions  and  principles 
of  men.  They  are  human  in  their  form,  in  their  combina- 
tion, and  in  their  application ;  but  they  are  divine  in  their 
quality.  The  standard  they  exhibit  is  not  human.  The 
doctrines  they  set  forth  are  not  human.  The  faith  they 
express,  and  the  teaching  they  convey,  is  the  very  Word  of 
God  itself. 

But  why  must  we  be  confined  to  a  credal  Confession  that 
is  hlbioiical,  composed  of  various  docwnents  (six  or  nine  short 
ones  instead  of  the  sixty-six  long  ones  of  Scripture),  and 
that  covers  all  the  ground  ?    Why  do  we  not  leave  it  as  wide 


*  Con.  Kef.,   pp.    185   sq. 


34  THE    LUTHER  AX    CONFESSIONS. 

in  spirit  as  it  is  in  compass  ?  Why  should  it  be  narrowed 
down  to  anything  less  than  a  general  Christianity  itself? 
Why  should  it  be  exclusive  ?  Dare  we  use  it  to  exclude  other 
human  beings  who  are  members  of  the  Lord's  Church  and 
whom  we  expect  to  meet  in  Heaven  ?  Is  not  this  the  very 
mark  of  a  narrow  sectarian  orthodoxy,  to  deem  one's  own  pe- 
culiar teachings  so  important  that  we  will  not  associate  with 
other  followers  of  Christ  who  are  as  good  Christians  as  we  are  ? 

This  very  widespread  feeling  among  Christians  of  our 
day  can  only  be  dealt  with  when  we  are  discussing  it  with 
people  who  will  admit  that  religion  is  not  chiefly  a  social  sen- 
timent— "  sweetness  and  light,"  as  Matthew  Arnold  puts  it — 
but  the  most  serious  and  thorough-going  business  of  life.  In 
serious  business,  distinctions,  classification,  grades  of  value, 
the  separation  of  the  genuine  from  the  specious,  and  of  first 
quality  from  that  a  little  more  inferior,  are  of  prime  im- 
portance. 

In  separating  a  man  not  of  our  faith  from  ourselves  or  our 
communion,  we  are  simply  taking  religion  seriously,  as  the 
most  practical  business  of  life.  We  are  not  attempting  to  ex- 
clude such  a  man  from  the  Christian  Church,  nor  passing 
judgment  on  his  eternal  welfare;  but  we  are  marking  him 
as  a  non-Lutheran  in  belief  and  practice  and  as  not  properly 
belonging  to  its  ])articular  commuuion  and  faith-  We  arc  ask- 
ing him  to  go  to  his  own  spiritual  people,  where  his  kind  of 
faith  is  promulgated  and  used  as  a  basis  of  hope  and  life, 
where  he  will  not  be  a  disturbing  element  to  other  people's 
principles,  and  wdiere  he  can  be  cared  for  on  his  own  princi- 
ples. Is  it  charitable  to  encourage  him  to  be  faithless  toward 
his  own  principles  ?  Even  though  his  personal  tastes,  or  his 
earthly  fellowships,  should  draw  him  into  our  communion, 
can  we,  from  any  justifiable  motive,  ask  him,  even  once,  to 
testify  against  his  own  principles,  which  should  be  more 
precious  to  him  than  life;  and  to  participate  in  the  most 
sacred  and  crowning  act  of  faitli  (r.  g.,  the  Sacrament), 
of  which  we  are  capable,  but  in  which  he  is  at  variance  with 


NOT   OPPRESSIVE.  35 

us?  The  bride  does  not  ask  even  her  most  intimate  and 
honored  friends  and  guests  at  the  wedding  to  participate  with 
her  in  her  act  of  marriage  with  the  groom.  We  must  draw 
the  line  in  all  sacred  relationships.  The  more  important  the 
relationship,  the  more  careful  our  action. 

We  are  doing  nothing  more  nor  less,  in  fact,  than  what 
everybody  believes  to  be  right  in  the  case  of  the  United  States, 
when  it  allows  only  naturalized  citizens  to  vote;  and  when  it 
excludes  from  its  voting  membership  those  who  either  do 
not  go  to  the  trouble,  or  are,  for  any  more  serious  reason,  un- 
willing to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  subscribe  to  our 
national  Confession,  the  Constitution.  This  is  not  illiberal, 
but  just  and,  in  the  long  run,  charitable  to  all. 

A  real  reason  why  people  justify  this  care  and  strictness 
in  the  State  and  criticise  it  in  the  Church  is  that  they  esti- 
mate the  importance  of  citizenship  as  above  that  of  Church 
membership,  and  allow  matters  of  convenience,  sentiment  as 
to  family  relationship  and  general  friendship,  and  other  sec- 
ondary considerations,  to  operate  in  religion,  but  not  in  poli- 
tics. A  man  will  go  five  hundred  miles  to  vote,  and  will  not 
walk  five  squares  to  church.  That  tells  the  whole  story  of 
his  estimate  of  the  comparative  importance  of  this  world's 
rule  and  order,  and  rule  and  order  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Confessional  fidelity  is  a  matter  of  conscience  as  it  works 
itself  out  into  order;  for  order  is  Heaven's  first  law,  not  only 
in  business  but  also  in  religion.  Good  order  is  not  the  antago- 
nist of  sweet  charity;  but  sweet  charity  appreciates  the  value 
of  order,  and  is  willing  to  take  the  other  car  rather  than  stand 
on  "the  platform  or  cling  to  a  footboard  outside,  when  there 
are  good  public  reasons  for  keeping  people  either  entirely 
inside  or  entirely  outside. 

After  the  above  was  written,  the  author  was  called  away 
from  his  study,  and  the  following  conversation  was  repeated 
to  him  as  having  just  taken  place  at  a  public  table:  "Are 
you  a  member  of  any  Church  ?"  "'No ;  but  my  wife  is  a 
Lutheran."    "And  is  she  a  good  Lutheran  ?"    "What  do  you 


36  TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

mean  by  'good  Lutheran'  ?"  "I  mean  one  who  attends  her 
Church  regularly."  "I  cannot  say  that  she  is,  at  least  we  are 
now  going  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  because  we  have  met 
some  very  fine  people  in  that  church,  with  whom  wc  are  quite 
social."  That  is  the  "  exclusive  "  question  in  a  nutshell.  In 
our  daily  walk  and  confession,  religion  is  to  be  regarded  as 
secondary  to  sociability  and  social  considerations. 

But  is  our  discussion,  up  to  this  point,  completely  fair? 
Does  it  exhaust  tlie  subject  ?  How  shall  we  recognize  the 
unity  that  embraces  in  itself  all  true  Christians  of  every  land, 
many  of  whom  are  entirely  outside  the  Lutheran  Church? 
Or  is  there  no  such  unity  ? 

Yes,  there  is  sucli  a  unity — the  only  really  universal  and 
eternal  imity  of  believers.  But  it  is  in  risible.  No  one  but 
God  knows  who  are  its  members.  Xo  Church  or  denomina- 
tion upon  earth  composes  it  as  such.  And  the  Churches 
upon  earth  can  not  presume  to  be  identical  with  the  commun- 
ion of  saints,  or  to  assert  the  relations  of  their  visible  mem- 
bership to  it.  They  each  claim  to  have  its  principles,  or  if 
they  do  not,  they  are  greatly  injuring  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Lord  by  maintaining  separate  organizations;  and  they  each 
must  act  conscientiously,  just  as  men  do  in  private  and 
business  life,  being  faithful  to  that  which  they  believe 
and  know,  and  leaving  that  which  they  see  through  a  glass 
darkly  to  the  Day  of  the  Lord. 

With  many  Christians  to-day,  the  importance  of  unity  is 
not  its  real  inuer  existence,  but  its  outer  demonstration.  It 
is  not  to  he  one,  but  to  impress  outsiders  properly  with  the 
fact  that  we  are  one,  and  are  mighty  as  one.  It  is  not  the 
unity  for  its  own  sake,  but  the  unity  for  the  sake  of  what  it 
will  do  and  show  in  this  world.  This  is  the  difference  be- 
tween union  and  unity.  Both  are  legitimate,  but  both  are 
not  equally  important.  L^nionism,  which  is  union  by  com- 
promise is  not  legitimate,  nor  abidingly  important. 

Tlie  Church  is  not  designed  chiefly  to  bring  men  into  out- 
,ward  earthly  associations,  or  to  make  them  acquainted  with 


NOT    OPPRESSIVE.  37 

each  other  as  preparatory  to  an  acquaintanceship  in  Heaven ; 
but  it  is  designed  to  implant  the  saving  Word  of  truth  within 
them,  and  to  relate  them  organically  through  the  Spirit  to  the 
Head  of  the  Church  and,  through  tlim  only,  to  each  other. 
The  Church  is  thus  the  body  of  Christ,  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  His  saving  truth;  and  the  Confession  is  our  deepest  con- 
viction of  that  saving  truth. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

SHOULD   CONFESSIOXS   COXDEMN  AND 
EXCLUDE  ? 

Against  the  enforcement  of  Confessional  Authority  are  Toleration,  Church  Rival- 
ries, Individualism  and  Democracy,  Historical  Persecution — But  Abuse  does 
not  abrogate  Use — The  Responsibility  of  Lutheranism — Discipline  and  Minatory 
Elements  in  Scripture  and  the  Confessions. 

MANY  complicated  causes  contribute  to  the  modern 
feeling  that  the  Church  should  be  sufficiently  broad 
and  liberal,  not  to  raise  its  voice  in  condemnation  of  error, 
nor  its  hand  in  excluding  even  the  imworthy  and  the  re- 
probate from  its  membership. 

The  spirit  of  universal  toleration,  which  is  indifferent  to 
doctrine,  and  regards  it  rather  as  a  dead  heirloom  from  a 
historical  past,  and  more  or  less  of  an  incubus  to  the  Church 
of  the  present,  than  as  the  dynamic  of  faith  and  life;  and 
which  substitutes  the  common  sense  and  personal  judgment 
of  each  Christian  individual,  for  the  collective  judgment  of 
the  Church  as  recorded  in  its  Confessions,  is  a  prime  cause 
for  this  feeling.     But  there  are  others. 

One  of  these  is  the  existence  of  many  rival  Protestant  or- 
ganizations, each  claiming  by  the  fact  of  their  separate  ex- 
istence (and  many  of  them  repudiating  their  own  claim  by 
laxity  of  word  and  act),  that  they  are  the  true  Church,  and 
that  their  confession  and  disei])line  are  decisive.  This  spec- 
tacle does  not  in  itself  disprove  that  there  really  is  some  one 
Church  which  possesses  the  true  doctrine,  for  the  truth  is 
nearly  always  surrounded  by  approximations  and  counter- 

38 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMN?  39 

feits  of  itself;  but,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  human  nature  is 
prone  to  regard  itself  as  right,  and  to  set  up  an  exclusive 
claim  of  right  for  its  own  party,  and  to  condemn  all  who  are 
outside  of  its  party — which  the  pages  of  history  illustrate 
abundantly — the  world  to-day  feels  that  even  the  true  Church 
should  be  modest  and  slow  to  condemn  others'  errors  and  sins, 
since,  very  likely,  at  least  a  part  of  the  condemnatory  act  is 
to  be  attributed  to  the  ordinary  frailty  of  human  nature, 
found  even  in  the  true  Church,  and  not  to  the  purity  of 
doctrine  which  it  rightly  claims  to  emphasize. 

Still  another  prejudice  against  Confessions  that  condemn 
is  to  be  found  in  the  emphasis  which  our  modern  life  places 
upon  the  individual,  as  being  of  more  importance  than  the 
institution,  and  upon  the  low  views  of  the  congregation  of 
Clirist  which  are  current  in  our  country.  This  is  a  serious 
thing.  The  general  public  has  almost  ceased  to  regard  the 
Protestant  Church  as  a  divine  institution,  but  looks  on  it  as  a 
voluntary  human  association  into  which  individuals  enter 
when  they  desire,  in  which  they  remain  as  long  as  they  please, 
and  from  which  they  are  privileged  to  withdraw,  as  they 
would  from  any  other  mere  society,  as  a  matter  of  course  and 
of  right,  whenever  they  wish  to  do  so,  for  any  or  no  cause 
whatsoever.  Each  individual  brings  to  the  congregational 
society  his  sensitive  personality,  together  with  his  "  doctrinal 
views  and  opinions,"  which  must  be  respected  not  only  in 
discipline,  but  also  in  preaching,  and  which  will  resent  any 
rebuke  or  allusion  to  them  as  error,  even  though  the  admoni- 
tion be  of  the  mildest  kind. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  the  Communion  of  Saints 
has  fallen  so  low,  that  the  Church  is  no  longer  regarded  as  a 
real  brotherhood  subject  to  the  teaching  and  the  disci- 
pline of  a  common  Scriptural  life.  Not  the  doctrine  of  the 
Confessions,  but  the  "sentiments",  "opinions"  and  "views" 
of  pastor  and  members,  which  are  influenced  rather  by  con- 
temporary philosophical  discussion  than  by  a  searching  of 
the  Scriptures  or  an  assimilation  of  the  Confessions,  prevail 


40  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

in  the  congregation.  There  is  a  disposition  to  allow  the 
pulpit,  and  the  mind  of  the  hearer,  to  be  open  and  untram- 
meled  on  all  sides,  and  to  accept  such  ideas  as  seem  to  each 
individual  to  be  most  helpful  to  his  own  spiritual  life.  Hence 
each  mendx'r  is  to  be  left  to  regulate  his  faith  and  life  l)_y 
ideas  that  appeal  to  him,  rather  than  by  the  strict  doctrine 
that  is  revealed  in  Scripture. 

We  reach  one  deep  root  of  the  matter  when  we  say  that 
the  Church  of  this  age,  with  all  our  other  institutions,  is 
affected  by  a  reaction  which  the  spirit  of  democracy  is  awak- 
ening against  all  authority.  Whether  the  authority  is  good 
and  lawful  or  not  makes  no  difference.  There  is,  especially 
in  our  nation,  something  in  the  nature  of  a  universal  protest 
against  constraint  or  discipline  of  any  kind.  The  disinclina- 
tion to  admit  and  to  use  authority,  and  the  difficulty  in  which 
officials  find  themselves  in  administering  their  authority 
justly,  without  uuiking  a  far-reaching  mistake,  or  involving 
the  cause  which  they  represent  in  destructive  consequences, 
have  become  exceedingly  great.  The  feeling  exists  that 
''truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail."  Give  it  a  fair  opportunity 
to  fight  its  own  battles,  and  stand  back  far  enough,  and  it  will 
win.  What  a  pity  it  did  not  win  in  the  Garden  of  Eden ! 
Calvary  and  the  Cross  would  then  have  been  unnecessary.  It 
will  prevail  indeed — in  the  end,  when  God  shall  be  all  in  all. 
Meanwhile  members  of  the  Church  are  growing  up  with 
the  idea  that  saving  faith  consists  in  subjective  individ- 
ual sentiment,  and  in  the  acceptance  of  the  privileges  of  re- 
ligion, without  the  acceptance  of  the  duties  and  burdens  and 
responsibilities  which  the  Church  must,  if  she  is  true  to  her 
Lord  and  to  her  members,  impose  upon  all. 

There  is  little  willingness  in  the  modern  spirit  to  accept  re- 
buke either  for  sin  or  for  error.  The  Protestant  idea  of  the 
individual  right  of  conscience  is  carried  so  far  that  the 
Church,  in  its  collective  capacity,  as  representing  God,  can- 
not sjDeak  out  against  a  torpid  conscience  without  being  re- 
garded as  narrow  and  as  attempting  to  exceed  her  authority. 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMN?  41 

For  ourselves,  we  freely  confess  both  our  faith  and  our 
sympathy  with  the  positive  method  of  quietly  and  continu- 
ously sowing  good  seed  over  and  over  again,  rather  than  in 
the  continuous  attempt  and  effort  to  pursue  and  destroy  error 
by  the  use  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  While  it  will  not  do  to 
allow  error  to  spring  up  unchecked,'  since  it  is  so  much  more 
prolific  and  overshadowing  than  truth;  yet,  nevertheless,  the 
chief  aim  of  the  Church  should  be  the  planting  of  truth,  and 
not  the  rooting  out  of  error.  The  two  go  together,  but  there 
is  constant  danger  that  the  zealot  will  turn  his  Christian  devo- 
tion into  a  military  fervor  for  destruction,  and  will  "breathe 
out  tlireatenings  and  slaughter  "  against  error ;  and  tliere  is 
equally  constant  danger  that  the  latitudiuarian  is  neglecting 
the  extirpation  of  error,  because  it  is  no  eyesore  to  him  and 
because  he  is  not  devoted,  heart  and  soul,  to  the  implantation 
of  the  sound  doctrine. 

The  road  to  truth  '  is  not  a  straight  one,  but,  as  the  world  is 
constituted,  has  been  reached  through  controversy  with  the 
extremes  of  error.  "Honest  and  earnest  controversy,"  says 
Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  "  conducted  in  a  Christian  and  catholic 
spirit,  promotes  true  and  lasting  union.  Polemics  looks  to 
Irenics.  The  aim  of  war  is  peace."  To  this  we  heartily  sub- 
scribe; and  while  it  is  not  possible  in  this  age  to  beat  the 
sword  into  ploughshares,  nor  to  turn  the  spears  into  pruning 
hooks,"  yet  the  right  thing  to  do  is  to  use  the  ploughshare 
regularly  and  faithfully,  and  to  hang  up  the  sword  in  reserve 
for  those  occasions  in  which  the  ploughshare  will  not  suffice. 
The  point  here  is  that  the  presence  of  the  sword  (of  the  Spirit) 
is  wholesome,  and  that  the  Confessions  have  the  right  to  hold 
it  in  reserve  and  to  wield  it  as  actual  necessity  may  require. 


'  The  parable  of  the  whrat  and  the  tare?  is  not  applicable  in  this  connection 
to  the  Church's  testing,   and  condemnation,  and  exclusion  of  heresy  and   error. 

*  The  line  to  truth  is  a  straight  one,  as  the  bird  flies,  but  not  the  actual 
road  on  earth.  There  are  high  mountains  and  winding  valleys  to  be 
traversed. 

'  In  which  capacity  they  would  often  be  useless,  since  the  liberal  modem 
Church   neither    desires   nor    tolerates    "  pruning." 


42  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

In  addition  to  the  objections  mentioned  above  as  lying 
in  the  public  mind  against  the  enforcement  of  Confessional 
authority,  there  is  still  another.  The  history  of  the  Christian 
congregation  in  its  efforts  to  uphold  pure  doctrine  and  sound 
spiritual  life  among  its  membership,  especially  during  the 
many  centuries  of  the  rule  of  Rome,  and  even  under  the  do- 
minion of  the  sterner  kinds  of  Protestantism,  has  been  so 
sad,  and  is  so  permeated  by  the  sinfulness  of  human  nature, 
that  the  very  principle  of  ecclesiastical  authority  itself,  in 
spiritual  things,  which  is  as  legitimate  in  its  right  use  as  it 
is  illegitimate  in  its  abuse,  is  now  being  denied  as  valid. 

It  is  true  that  the  tyranny  of  much  of  the  earlier  Protest- 
antism, as  exemplified  in  this  country  particularly  by  the 
laws  of  Puritanism,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  whose  heart  is  foreign  to  a  rule  of  legalism  of  any 
sort.  Krauth  has  plead  the  conspicuous  innocence  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  as  follows: 

"The  glorious  words  of  Luther  were,  'The  pen,  not  the  fire, 
is  to  put  down  heretics.  The  hangmen  are  not  doctors  of 
theology.  This  is  not  the  place  for  force,  ^'ot  the  sword, 
but  the  Word,  fits  for  this  battle.  If  the  Word  does  not  put 
down  error,  error  would  stand,  though  the  Avorld  were 
drenched  with  blood.'  By  these  just  views,  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  stood,*  and  will  stand  forever.  But  she  is  none 
the  less  earnest  in  just  modes  of  shielding  herself  and  her 
children  from  the  teachings  of  error  which  takes  cover  under 
the  pretence  of  private  judgment.  She  would  not  burn  Serve- 
tus,  nor,  for  opinion's  sake,  touch  a  hair  of  his  head ;  neither, 
however,  would  she  permit  him  to  bear  her  name,  to  'preach 
another  Jesus'  in  her  pulpits,  to  teach  error  in  her  univer- 
sities, or  to  approach  with  her  children  the  table  of  their 
Lord,  Whom  he  denied.  Her  name,  her  confessions,  her 
history,  her  very  being  protest  against  the  supposition  of  such 


*  Notwithstanding  the  bitterness  and  the  exceptional  cases  of  persecution 
which  occurred  after  Luther's  death  in  the  midst  of  the  Protestant  internal 
controversies,  by  civil  rulers,  at  the  instigation  of  the  extremists  of  all  parties. 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMy?  43 

'fellowship  with  tlio  works  of  darkness,'  such  sympathy  with 
heresy,  such  levity  iu  regard  to  the  faith.  She  never  prac- 
ticed thus.  She  never  can  do  it.  Those  who  imagine  .  .  .  the 
right  of  men,  within  the  Lutheran  Church,  to  teach  what 
they  please  in  the  face  of  her  testimony,  know  not  the  nature 
of  the  right  they  claim,  nor  of  the  Church,  Avhose  very  life 
involves  her  refusal  to  have  fellowship  with  them  in  their 
error.  It  is  not  the  right  of  private  judgment  which  makes 
or  marks  a  num  Lutheran.  .  .  .  It  and  the  right  of  Church 
discipline  are  co-ordinate  and  harmonious  rights,  essential 
to  the  prevention,  each  of  the  abuse  of  the  other.  To  uphold 
either  intelligently,  is  to  uphold  both-  In  maintaining,  there- 
fore, as  Protestants,  the  right  and  duty  of  men  to  form  their 
own  convictions,  unfettered  by  civil  penalties  or  inquisitorial 
powers,  we  maintain,  also,  the  right  and  duty  of  the  Church 
to  shield  herself  from  corruption  in  doctrine  by  setting  forth 
the  truth  in  her  Confession,  by  faithfully  controverting 
heresy,  by  personal  warning  to  those  that  err,  and,  finally, 
with  the  contumacious,  by  rejecting  them  from  her  commun- 
ion, till,  through  grace,  they  are  led  to  see  and  renounce  the 
falsehood  for  which  they  claimed  the  name  of  truth."  ' 

''  Xo  church,  apart  from  the  fundamentals  of  the  gospel  in 
which  her  unity  and  very  life  are  involved,  is  so  mild,  so 
mediating,  so  thoroughly  tolerant  as  our  o\\ti.  Over  against 
the  unity  of  Rome  under  a  universal  Head,  the  unity  of  Iligh- 
Churchism  under  the  rule  of  Bishops,  the  unities  which  turn 
upon  like  rites  or  usages  as  in  themselves  necessary,  or  which 
build  up  the  mere  subtleties  of  human  speculation  into  arti- 
cles of  faith,  over  against  these  the  Lutheran  Church  was  the 
first  to  stand  forth,  declaring  that  the  unity  of  the  Church 
turns  upon  nothing  that  is  of  man.  Where  the  one  pure 
Gospel  of  Christ  is  preached,  where  the  one  foundation  of 
doctrine  is  laid,  where  the  '  one  faith  '  is  confessed,  and  the 
alone  divine  Sacraments  administered  aright,  there  is  the  one 
Church ;  this  is  her  unity. 


'Con.  Ref.,  pp.  174  sq.     For  the  following,  Vid.    ib . ,  pp.    181  .sq. 


44  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

"Our  fathers  clearly  saw  and  sharply  drew  the  distinction 
between  God's  foundation  and  man's  superstructure,  between 
faith  and  opinion,  between  religion  and  speculative  theology, 
and,  with  all  these  distinctions  before  them,  declared,  thac 
consent  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  tlie  right  adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments  is  the  only  basis  of  the  unity  of 
the  Church.  This  basis,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  defined 
and  rests  on  it,  to  abide  there,  we  trust,  by  God's  grace,  to  the 
end  of  time." 

If  the  Lutheran  Church  is  true  to  Scripture  and  true  to 
herself,  as  the  Church  of  the  pure  Word  and  Sacraments 
she  cannot  avoid  the  responsibility  of  condemnation  and  ex- 
clusion. Her  ministers  and  congregations,  after  making 
all  due  allowance  for  the  fact  that  they  differ  from  the 
Church  in  Apostolic  days  in  that  they  have  not  the  Saviour 
or  the  inspired  Ajioslles  to  guide  them,  that  we  are  ignorant 
of  the  inner  life,  motives  and  principles  of  other  men,  and 
are  not  acquainted  with  either  the  conditions  that  determine 
their  action,  or  the  possibilities  of  amendment  that  their  fu- 
ture may  contain,  and  with  due  reference  to  the  fact  that 
others  are  not  to  be  judged  by  us,  that  is,  to  receive  a  sweep- 
ing and  final  verdict  on  general  principles  at  our  hands ;  and, 
further,  remembering  that  it  is  necessary  to  exercise  the 
greatest  patience  and  forbearance,  and  at  times  to  refrain 
from  judging  even  where  the  outward  evidence  seems  to  con- 
vince (John  8:  11;  1  Cor.  4:  5),  must,  nevertheless,  botli 
warn  and  exclude  error  from  the  Church. 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Absolution  is  not  complete  and 
is  never  really  exercised,  unless  the  '^binding"  accompanies 
the  "loosing,"  unless  the  Word  is  applied  not  only  for  release, 
but  also  for  condemnation.  The  witness  of  tlie  Church  is  to 
be  two-edged  (Matt.  16:  19;  18:  18;  John  20:  23).  Exclu- 
sion, as  exercised  by  the  Christian  Church,  was  instituted  by 
our  Lord  (Matt.  18:  15,  18),  and  commanded  and  practiced 
by  St.  Paul  (1  Tim.  1 :  20 ;  1  Cor.  5:7;  Titus  3:  10). 

The  three-fold  admonition,  first  j)rivately,  then  in  the  pres- 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMN?  45 

ence  of  two  or  three  witnesses,  and  finally  before  the  Church, 
leads  to  a  recognized  and  appointed  way  in  which  a  church 
niembor  must  at  last  become  to  his  brethren  as  a  heathen  man 
and  publican.  This  exclusion  is  to  follow  on  the  member's 
unrepentant  rejection  of  the  censure  of  the  church  passed 
on  him  for  a  trespass  which  he  has  committed. 

St.  Paul  not  only  gives  directions  to  "admonish  the  dis- 
orderly" (1  Thess.  5 :  14ff ;  1  Tim.  5 :  20),  and  to  hold  aloof 
from  members  who  are  openly  wicked  (1  Cor.  5 :  11),  or  who 
refuse  to  obey  his  word  in  his  letters  (2  Cor.  3:  14ff;  Rom. 
16:  17),  but  also  claims  the  right  to  exercise  discipline  (com- 
pare 2  Cor,  1 :  23  ;  13 :  10).  His  letters  refer  to  the  exercise 
of  this  authority  in  the  case  of  two  offenders  cut  off  from  the 
Church  (1  Cor.  5;  1  Tim.  1:  19,  20).  Persons  were  disci- 
plined not  only  for  moral  offences,  but  for  a  schismatic  spirit 
(Titus  3 :  10,  "  A  man  that  is  heretical,  after  a  first  and 
i^econd  admonition  refuse").  In  2  John  5,  10,  false  doctrine 
is  made  the  ground  for  absolute  breach  of  intercourr^c. 

Moreover,  the  Apostle  Paul  writes  positively  that  we 
are  to  cut  ourselves  off,  or  withdraw,  from  those  wdio  do 
not  obey  sound  doctrine  (2  Thess.  3 :  14 ;  Rom.  16:  17;  Gal. 
5  :  2  ;  1  Tim.  6  :  3).  The  rulers  of  some  of  the  seven  Churches 
in  Revelation  are  rebuked  for  their  latitudinarian  spirit  and 
teaching ;  and  St.  Paul  emphatically  declares,  "  Though 
we  or  an  angel  from  Heaven  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto 
you  than  that  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  ac- 
cursed" (Gal.  1:8,  9);  i.e.,  "'disclaim  and  renounce  all 
communion  with  him." 

The  fact  that  the  exercise  of  this  duty  of  condemnation  or 
exclusion  often  w^as  abused  (compare  Luke  6:22;  John  9 : 
22;  12:  42;  16:  2;  3  John  9,  10),  was  not  regarded  in  \hc 
Xew  Testament  as  a  reason  for  retiring  the  exercise  of  this 
function  of  the  AVord  into  the  background. 

Our  own  Confessions,  in  accordance  wdth  Scripture,  recog- 
nize excommunication.  Melanchthon  does  so  in  the  Apology, 
chap.    IV,    3.      Speaking    of    Confession,     in    the    Apology 


-46  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

(chapter  iv,  01),  Melanclithon'  says,  "  Excomnuuiication  is 
also  pronounced  against  the  openly  wicked  and  the  despisers 
of  the  Sacraments.  These  things  are  thus  done,  both  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  and  according  to  the  old  canons." 

The  Schmalkald  Articles  carefully  dish nguish, between  the 
civil  and  the  spiritual  exconnnunication,  in  Part  iii,  9. 
They  say,  "The  greater  excommunication,  as  the  Pope  calls  it, 
we  regard  only  as  a  civil  penalty,  and  not  pertaining  to  us 
ministers  of  the  Church.  But  the  less  is  true  Christian  ex- 
communication, which  prohibits  manifest  and  obstinate  sin- 
ners from  the  sacrament  and  other  communion  of  the  Church 
until  they  are  reformed  and  avoid  sin."  This  power  inheres 
in  the  ministry.  ''Therefore  the  bishop  has  the  power  of  the 
order,  i.  e.,  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments;  he  has 
also  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  i.  e.,  the  authority  to  excom- 
municate those  guilty  of  open  crimes,  and  again  to  absolve 
them  if  they  are  converted  and  seek  absolution." '  ''  It  is 
right  to  restore  this  jurisdiction  to  godly  pastors,  and  to  see 
to  it  that  it  be  legitimately  exercised  for  the  reformation  of 
life  and  the  glory  of  God." ' 

Compare  also  ''  The  Office  of  the  Keys  as  the  Head  of  1he 
Family  should  Teach  it  in  all  Simplicity  to  his  Household," 
in  Luther's  Small  Catechism :  "  I  believe  that  when  the 
called  ministers  of  Christ  deal  with  us  by  His  divine  com- 
mand, especially  when  they  exclude  manifest  and  impenitent 
sinners  from  the  Christian  congregation,  and,  again,  when 
they  absolve  those  who  repent,  .  .  .  this  is  as  valid  and  cer- 
tain, in  heaven  also,  as  if  Christ,  our  dear  Lord,  dealt  with 
us  Himself." 

The  Augsburg  Confession  itself  (article  xxviii)   declares 


*  That  Melanchthon  could  condemn  we  see  In  the  Apology  where,  in 
speaking  of  the  Trinity,  he  says  :  "  We  constantly  affirm  that  those  thinking 
otherwise  are  outside  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  are  idolatrous,  and  insult 
God." — Apol.  Art.   I. 

"Z&id.,  p.   288. 

*  The   Schmalkald   Articles,  Power   and   Primacy   of  the  Pope,   343. 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMN?  47 

that  the  power  of  the  "  Keys "  is  "a  power  of  preaching 
the  Gospel,  of  remitting  or  retaining  sins  and  of  administer- 
ing the  Sacraments."  Thus  our  earlier  Confessions,  in 
manner  as  mild  as  possible,  reject  errors  and  heresies,  ancient 
and  modern,  that  are  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God. 

In  terms  not  any  less  measured  than  these,  but  with  the 
keen  experience  of  half  a  century  behind  them,  the  confessors 
in  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord  declare:  "It  seemed 
exceedingly  necessary  that,  amidst  so  many  errors  that  had 
arisen  in  our  times,  as  well  as  causes  of  offence,  variances 
and  these  long-continued  dissensions,  a  godly  explanation  and 
agreement  concerning  all  these  controversies,  derived  from 
God's  Word,  should  exist,  according  to  which  the  pure  doc- 
trine might  be  discriminated  and  separated  from  the  false. 
Besides,  this  matter  is  of  importance  also  in  this  respect,  viz., 
that  troublesome  and  contentious  men,  who  do  not  suffer 
themselves  to  be  bound  to  any  formula  of  the  purer  doctrine, 
may  not  have  the  liberty,  according  to  their  good  pleasure,  to 
excite  controversies  which  furnish  ground  for  offence,  and 
to  publish  and  contend  for  extravagant  opinions.  For  the 
result  of  these  things,  at  length,  is  that  the  purer  doctrine 
is  obscured  and  lost,  and  nothing  is  transmitted  to  posterity 
except  academical  opinions  and  suspensions  of  judgment." 

That,  however,  this  condemnation  of  unsound  doctrine  is 
exceedingly  mild  in  our  Confessional  writings  is  to  be  seen 
from  another  statement  in  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord: 

"  Thus  as  it  is  in  no  way  our  design  and  purpose  to  con- 
demn those  men  who  err  from  a  certain  simplicity  of  mind, 
and,  nevertheless,  are  not  blasphemers  against  the  truth  of 
the  heavenly  doctrine,  much  less  indeed  entire  churches, 
which  are  either  imder  the  Eoman  Empire  of  the  German 
Bation  or  elsewhere;  nay,  rather  it  has  been  our  intention 
and  disposition,  in  this  manner,  to  openly  censure  and  con- 
demn only  the  fanatical  opinions  and  their  obstinate  and  blas- 
phemous teachers    (which  we  judge   should   in  no  way  be 


48  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tolerated  in  our  dominions/  churches  and  schools),  because 
these  errors  conflict  with  the  express  Word  of  God,  and  that 
too  in  such  a  way  that  they  cannot  be  reconciled  with  it. 
We  have  also  undertaken  this  for  this  reason,  viz.,  that  all 
godly  persons  might  be  warned  concerning  diligently  avoid- 
ing them.  .  .  . 

^'Wherefore,  by  this  writing  of  ours,  we  testify  in  the 
sight  of  Almighty  God,  and  before  the  entire  Church,  that 
it  has  never  been  our  purpose,  by  means  of  this  godly  formula 
for  union,  to  occasion  trouble  or  danger  to  the  godly  who  to- 
day are  suffering  persecution.  For  as,  moved  by  Cliristian 
love,  we  have  already  entered  into  the  fellowship  of  grief 
with  them,  so  we  are  shocked  at  the  persecution  and  most 
grievous  tyranny  which  with  such  severity  is  exercised 
against  these  poor  men,  and  sincerely  detest  it.  For  in  no 
way  do  we  consent  to  the  shedding  of  that  innocent  blood, 
for  w^hich  undoubtedly  a  reckoning  will  be  demanded  with 
great  severity  from  the  persecutors  at  the  awful  judgment  of 
the  Lord,  and  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  and  they  will 
then  certainly  render  a  most  strict  account  and  suffer  fearful 
punishment." 

When  we  come  to  examine  tlie  condemnatory  elements  to 
be  found  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  we  shall 
perhaps  be  surprised  to  sec  how  mucli  more  mild  they  are, 
comparatively,  than  is  the  Scripture  itself.  We  may  also  be 
surprised  to  find  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  not  any 
stronger  in  its  condemnations  than  is  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
and  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  probably  as  mild  in  its 
condemnation  as  is  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

It  is  strange  that  it  does  not  occur  to  the  Lutheran  who  con- 
demns the  Confessions  for  their  minatory  passages  that  they 


•The  separation  of  Church  and  State.  posKible  in  America,  enables  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  develop  her  confessional  principle  of  Law  and  Gospel, 
entirely  apart  from  the  aid  of  the  State,  more  fully  than  she  could  in  Germany 
in  the  Reformation  era.  As  a  Church  she  will  not  even  pass  the  customary 
resolutions  that  ask  the  State  not  to  tolerate  the  secularization  of  the  Lord's 
day    ("  Sabbath   desecration  "). 


SHOULD    THEY   CONDEMN?  49 

are  far  less  minatory  thau  the  Scriptures  themselves.  Will 
we  be  consistent  and  condemn  Scripture  because  Scripture 
condemns  error,  heresy  and  wickedness  ? 

The  fact  is  tliat  the  whole  Scripture  is  terribly  negative  in 
dealing-  with  error  and  sin.  Every  one,  except  the  third,  of 
the  Ten  C/omniandments  is  a  negative.  A  large  part  of  our 
Saviour's  utterances  are  negative  and  condemnatory  in  form, 
and  all  of  them  are  in  view  of  the  existence  of  evil,  to  be 
witnessed  against,  struck  down,  suffered  for  and  overcome. 

Tlie  sliarp  condemnation  of  the  Christian  Church  in  her 
old  theology  is  usually  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  and  his  more  narrow  and  rabbinic  outlook ;  but 
if  any  more  terrible  denunciations  have  ever  come  from 
human  lips  than  those  that  came  so  freely  from  the  mild 
and  gentle  Son  of  ^lan  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  the 
picture  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  cast  into  outer  dark- 
ness, in  upbraiding  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida,  in  comparing 
the  men  of  Xineveh  with  His  own  generation,  in  condemning 
those  who  have  ears  to  hear  and  hear  not,  in  ruling  out  the 
tradition  of  the  elders  (Matt,  15),  in  rebuking  His  own  dis- 
ciples, and  the  unbelief  of  those  who  listened  to  Him,  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  unjust  debtor,  and  rich  men  who  trust 
in  their  riches,  and  the  useless  fig  tree,  and  those  who  reject 
the  Cornerstone,  and  the  bidden  who  would  not  come,  and 
the  man  without  a  wedding  garment,  and  the  unprofitable 
servant  to  be  cast  into  outer  darkness,  and,  above  all,  the 
Pharisees  who  shall  receive  the  greater  damnation,  in  woes 
and  denunciations  most  terrible  (see  also  the  whole  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  including  even  the  stern  words  in  the  tender  parable 
of  the  Good  Shepherd) — if  any  condemnation  more  stern  and 
terrible  than  this  has  come  from  the  mouth  of  man,  we  know 
not  where  to  find  it. 

The  Old  Testament,  it  will  be  admitted,  is  full  of  con- 
demnation and  exclusion,  but  we  doubt  whether  the  fulness 
of  its  volume  is  appreciated. 

The  first  scene  in  the  Bible  closes  with  a  curse  on  man  and 


50  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

his  exclusion  from  the  Garden  of  Eden.  The  next  scene 
shows  us  Cain  being  branded  by  the  Lord  as  a  murderer. 
Then  comes  the  condenmation  of  the  whole  earth  and  its 
punishment  in  the  flood.  The  punishments  of  Jacob  and  his 
sons,  the  warnings,  condemnations,  ceremonial  exclusions  and 
severe  visitations  on  rebellious  Israel  in  the  wanderings, 
the  punishments  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  of  Israel  un- 
der the  judges  and  kings,  are  notable.  Can  you  pick  up  a 
passage  from  Isaiah  or  any  one  of  the  prophets  and  find  it 
unmingled  with  commination  ?  We  shall  not  speak  of  the  im- 
precatory Psalms;  but  we  direct  attention  to  the  fact  that 
with  all  the  change  of  attitude  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
New,  in  the  coming  of  Grace  and  Truth,  while  love  takes  the 
place  of  hate  toward  our  enemies,  there  is  no  intimation  that 
toleration  has  taken  the  place  of  condemnation  in  our  relation 
to  error  and  falsehood. 

"Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  proph- 
ets: I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I 
say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  ful- 
filled. Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do, 
and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in 
shee])'s  clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves.  Ye 
shall  know  them  by  their  fruits." — Matt.  Chapts.  5-7. 

"But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men.  Every  ])lant,  which  my  heavenly 
Fatlier  hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up." — Matt.  15 : 
9,  13. 

"For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing  shall  grievous 
wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock." — xVcts  20 : 
29. 

"  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  di- 
visions and  oft'ences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have 


SHOULD    TtlEY    COXDEMN?  51 

learned ;  and  avoid  them.  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  their  own  belly,  and  by  good  words 
and  fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple." — Rom. 
16:  17,  18. 

''For  we  are  not  as  many  which  corrupt  the  word  of  God : 
but  as  of  sincerity,  but  as  of  God,  in  the  sight  of  God,  speak 
we  in  Christ."— 2  Cor.  2:17. 

*'For  such  are  false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transform- 
ing themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ.  And  no  marvel ; 
for  Satan  himself  is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light. 
Therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  transr 
formed  as  tlie  ministers  of  righteousness,  whose  end  shall  be 
according  to  their  works." — 2  Cor.  11:  13-15. 

''And  this  I  say,  lest  any  man  should  beguile  you  with  en- 
ticing words.  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  phil- 
osophy and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the 
rudiments  of  the  w^orld,  and  not  after  Christ." — Col.  2 :  4,  8. 

''But  there  were  false  prophets  also  among  the  people,  even 
as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily  shall 
bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction." 
—2  Peter  2  :  1. 

We  have  brought  these  passages  to  remembrance  to  make  it 
evident  that  the  elements  of  condemnation  in  the  Symbolical 
Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church  are  not  as  severe  as  the  con- 
denmation  of  false  teaching  and  living  to  be  found  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

Analyzing  the  condemnatory  elements  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  we  find  tliat  Article  i  condemns  those  who  set 
up  two  eternal  principles  of  good  and  evil,  and  those  who 
contend  that  there  is  only  one  person  in  the  Trinity.  Article 
II  condemns  the  Pelagians,  who  argue  that  a  man  may  by 
the  strength  of  his  own  reason  be  justified  before  God.  Ar- 
ticle v  condemns  the  Anabaptists  and  others  v/lio  imagine 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  men  without  the  outward 
Word.      Article    viii   condemns   the   Donatists.      Article   ix 


52  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

condemns  those  who  condemn  Infant  Baptism.  Article  x 
"disapproves"  of  those  that  teach  non-Lutheran  doctrine  on 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Article  xii  condemns  those  who  main- 
tain the  doctrine  of  sinless  perfection.  Article  xiii  con- 
demns an  opus  operaium  use  of  the  Sacraments.  Article 
XVII  condemns  those  who  believe  in  a  limited  state  of  tor- 
ment and  in  a  millenium.  Article  xviii  condemns  the 
Pelagians,  who  believe  that  we  are  able  to  love  God  without 
His  Spirit. 

Neither  the  Apology "  nor  the  Schmalkald  Articles  (ex- 
cept with  reference  to  the  Papists),  nor  the  Small  nor  the 
Large  Catechisms  contain  formal  condemnatory  matter.  The 
Formula  of  Concord,  wliich  was  composed  to  deal  with  and 
settle  controversies,  and  which  is  written  in  most  moderate 
tone,  rejects  and  condemns  thirteen  false  doctrines  concern- 
ing original  sin,  without,  however,  mentioning  any  con- 
temporaries. It  rejects  eight  false  doctrines  concerning  the 
free-will,  without  mentioning  contemporaries.  It  rejects 
and  condemns  eleven  errors  respecting  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  without  mentioning  any  names  at  all.  It  rejects  and 
condemns  three  false  doctrines  concerning  good  works,  with- 
out mentioning  any  names.  It  rejects  and  condemns  the 
wrong  teaching  concerning  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  without 
mentioning  any  names. 

It  also  condemns  twenty-one  doctrines  of  the  Sacramentar- 
ians  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  rejects  twenty  false 
doctrines  concerning  the  Person  of  Christ,  without  mention- 
ing contemporaries ;  four  false  doctrines  concerning  church 
rites,  and  four  false  doctrines  concerning  predestination, 
without  mentioning  any  names.  It  also  "simply  enumerates 
the  mere  articles  wherein  tlie  heretics  of  our  time  err  and 
teach  what  is  contrary  to  our  Christian  faith  and  Confes- 
sion." Among  these  are  seventeen  errors  of  the  Anabaptists, 
eight  of  the  Schwenkfeldians,  one  of  the  new  Arians  and  one 
of  the  anti-Trinitarians. 

■»  But    V.   p.    46. 


SHOULD    THEY    CONDEMN'?  53 

In  other  words,  it  covers  the  whole  field  of  error  as  it  pre- 
sented itself  to  the  Lutheran  Church  at  that  time,  and  clearly 
presents  the  errors,  without  a  trace  of  personality  or  any 
bitterness  of  discussion.  It  says,  '^We  cannot  forbear  testi- 
fying against  them  publicly,  before  all  Christendom,  that  we 
have  neither  part  nor  fellowship  with  these  errors,  but  reject 
and  eondenni  them  one  and  all  as  wrong  and  heretical,  con- 
trary to  the  Scri])tures  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  as  well 
as  to  our  well-grounded  Augsburg  Confession." 

To  our  mind  there  can  be  no  more  useful  service  per- 
formed by  a  public  standard  of  the  Church,  than  to  point  out 
the  dangers  and  pitfalls  of  doctrine  which  have  come  up  in 
the  course  of  actual  experience  and  which  threaten  the  true 
faith  in  Christ.  As  Frederic  Meyrick  says,  "If  Christianity 
is  merely  a  philosophical  idea  thrown  into  the  world  to  do 
battle  with  other  theories,  and  to  be  valued  according  as  it 
maintains  its  ground  or  not  in  the  conflict  of  opinions,  ex- 
communication and  ecclesiastical  discipline  are  unreasonable. 
If  a  society  has  been  instituted  for  maintaining  any  body  of 
doctrine  and  any  code  of  morals,  they  are  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  that  society.  That  the  Christian  Church  is  a 
spiritual  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  is  the  declaration  of  the 
Bible." 


CHAPTER   VII. 
WHAT  GIVES  THE  CONFESSION  VALIDITY? 

A  Confession  is  Testimony,  not  Agreement,  nor  Contract — Its  Aim  is  Instruction, 
not  Obligation — The  Agreement  is  the  Pre-existing  one  of  Doctrine — Cannot 
be  put  together  by  Negotiation — The  Result  (Not  the  Cause)  of  the  Substantial 
Unities  in  Christ — Not  a  Platform,  nor  a  Delineation  for  Comparative  Distinction 
— Born,  not  Made — The  Stress  of  Providence — Its  Validity  is  that  of  Testmiony 
— Evidence  of  the  Lutheran  Confession — Analysis  of  the  Legal  Situation — Not 
Based  on  Social  Pact — Lacks  the  Essence  of  Contract,  viz. :  An  Interchange  of 
Legal  Rights  Whose  Transfer  the  Law  Will  Compel — The  Binding  Clauses  of 
our  Confessions. 

THE  Cliurch's  Confession  is  testimony,  and  its  validity 
lies  in  its  witness.  The  form  in  which  this  witness  is 
cast  is  unessential,  if  the  substance  be  complete  and  perfect 
and  the  form  do  no  injustice  to  the  substance.  The  strength 
of  the  Confession  is  the  strength  of  God's  truth,  which,  in 
Christ,  builds  and  holds  the  Church  ;  and  which,  besides  the 
bodily  utterance,  is  the  chief  thing  in  the  Confession.  The 
strength  of  the  Church's  Confessions  is  her  Confession. 

The  agreement  of  men  in  this  Confessional  testimony,  is 
that  of  a  conmion  conviction  in  which  they  find  themselves,  not 
that  of  a  common  understanding  at  which  they  have  arrived. 
The  number  of  those  sharing  the  conviction  and  confessing  it 
does  not  add  validity,  though  it  may  add  credibility,  imder 
the  regular  conditions  of  number  in  evidence,  to  the  witness. 
The  value  of  a  witness  depends  on  conscience  as  it  is  intel- 
ligently enlightened  through  revealed  truth,  and  not  on  any 
attemjit  to  make  our  witness  agree  with  that  of  others.  When 
the  witness  of  two  or  three  agrees,  the  added  force  arises  be- 
cause we  see  the  truth  to  be  strong  enough  to  simultaneously 
affect  a  number  of  consciences.     It  shows  that  the  Confession 

54 


VALIDITY.  55 

is  that  of  a  communion  in  which  every  conscience  testifies  to 
the  same  eflFect. 

Four  different  classes  of  agreement  centre  in  a  Confession : 
1,  the  agreement  of  the  Confession  with  Scripture;  2,  the 
agreement  of  the  Confession  with  the  confession  and  with 
itself;  3,  the  agreement  of  the  confessors  with  the  Confes- 
sion, and  4,  tlie  agreement  of  the  confessors  with  each  other 
as  to  the  Confession.  The  validity  of  the  Confession  depends 
upon  the  first  kind  of  agreement:  ''The  value  of  creeds  de- 
pends upon  the  measure  of  their  agreement  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  Bible  is  the  norma  normans;  the  Confession  the 
norma  normala.  The  Bible  is  the  rule  of  faith  (regula 
fidei)  ;  the  Confession  the  rule  of  doctrine  (regula  doc- 
trinae)^^ 

The  chief  permanent  use  of  a  Confession  is  based  on  its 
power  as  genuine  and  valid  testimony.  Its  chief  purpose  in 
the  Church  is  to  illuminate,  to  clarify  and  to  convince.  Its 
chief  binding  power  is  the  binding  power  of  the  truth.  Its 
chief  hold  is  its  hold  on  the  conscience  of  those  whose  mind 
has  been  illuminated  and  convinced  by  it. 

This,  in  modern  terms,  is  but  another  way  of  saying  that 
the  chief  value  of  a  Church  Confession  is  educational,  rather 
than  restrictive.  In  itself,  the  whole  restrictive  strength  of 
the  Confession  lies  in  its  moral  force.  An  additional  act, 
exterior  to  itself,  is  required  to  turn  its  validity  into  the 
validity  of  ecclesiastical  law.  And  it  is  important  to  separate 
this  additional  act,  as  an  inferior  function,  from  the  Con- 
fession's main  office  of  testimony.  The  first  duty  of  the 
Church  is  to  instruct  its  members  in  its  testimony  so  thor- 
oughly that  they  will  come  to  voluntary  agreement  with  it 
under  the  influence  of  its  truth.  If,  in  addition,  the  Church 
feel  it  to  be  salutary  to  make  her  members  promise,  in  vow 
or  by  subscription,  to  remain  faithful  to  such  Confession, 
this  act  is  in  itself  an  important  incidental  application  of 


*  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  7. 


56  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  Confession  as  a  part  of  a  precautionary  ecclesiastical 
administration.  But  as  the  main  nse  of  Scripture  is  not  its 
normative  use,  so  the  main  use  of  the  Confession  is  not 
VerpflichtungJ' 

That  the  Lutheran  Confessions  take  this  view  of  their 
validity '  and  regard  their  chief  purpose  to  be  instruction, 
is  to  be  seen  from  the  manner  in  which  they  characterize 
themselves.  The  Augsburg  (^onfcssion  terms  itself  '*  Sum- 
mary of  the  Doctrine  of  our  Teachers."  The  Large  Cate- 
chism terms  itself  "^A  Course  of  Instruction"  *  and  "A  Treat- 
ment of  the  Five  Articles  of  the  Entire  Christian  Doc- 
trinae."'  The  Formula  of  Concord  declares  itself  to  be  "A 
Summary  Exhibition  of  Doctrine,"  *  And  while  the  Confes- 
sors state  their  mutual  agreemcut  in  the  doctrines  and  declare 
"to  stand  on  them,  if  God  so  will,  even  to  death  ;"  ^  and  agi'ee, 
in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  to  ''neither  apeak  nor  write  any- 
thing contrary  to  this  declaration,  but  intend  to  abide  there- 
by," yet  the  chief  matter  is  the  "vish  fo  testify  that  the  above 
declaration  and  no  other,  is  our  faith,  doctrine  and  confes- 
sion." 

Any  agreement  in  confession,  which  has  not  had  a  pre- 
existence  as  a  fact,  perhaps  not  explicit,  yet  actually  wrought, 
in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  those  who  are  under  the  power 
of  the  pure  Gospel,  does  not  add  to  the  strength  of  the  Con- 
fession. Any  agreement  which  is  not  in  itself  the  spontane- 
ous originating  cause  of  uniting  men  in  their  testimony,  but 
which  is  the  result  of  a  concerted  attempt  to  agree  and 
which  locates  and  places  the  agreement  in  the  formulation 
and  does  not  regard  the  latter  as  an  explication  and  expres- 
sion of  a  fact  already  existent,  weakens  the  validity  of  the 
Confession. 


=  In  Europe,  where  Church  and  State  have  always  been  united,  and  where 
the  Couressional  obligation  has  ultimately  been  to  the  State,  the  matter  of 
Verpflichtung  early  assumed  a  serious,  if  not  overshadowing,  importance. 
For  such   Veipflichtuiiys  formrln,  see  KiiUner,  I.    121   sqq. 

'  Schaft  declares  that  the  Lutheran  Confessions  were  "originally  intended 
merely  as  testimonies  or  confessions  of  faith." — Creeds  of  Christendom,  p.   222. 

*  Second  Preface.  '  Ihid.  •  F.  C,  p.  537.  ^  Sc^hmalkald  Articles. 


VALIDITY.  57 

It  is  a  misinterpretation  of  the  origin  of  a  true  Confession 
to  say  that  various  wings  of  a  Church  came  together  and 
agreed  on  a  sum  of  doctrine  which  they  put  forth  to  be  con- 
fessed. If  the  Confession  is  a  true  one,  as  we  believe  those 
of  our  Church  to  be,  they  came  together  to  fitid  or  to  express 
the  agreement  already  existing  in  their  doctrine,  and  not  to 
make  a  doctrine  or  consensus  of  doctrine  in  which  they  would 
agree  to  agree.  In  the  case  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
^lelanchthon's  wish  to  thwart  the  full  and  open  confession  of 
the  faith,  his  attempts  to  conciliate  the  opposite  party  and  to 
subordinate  the  real  end  of  confession  to  a  conciliation  of  the 
Emperor  came  to  naught  through  the  Providential  course  of 
events,  and  he  was  obliged  to  give  form  to  the  full  Lutheran 
truth  in  spite  of  himself.  In  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Avhere 
the  discovery  was  of  confessional  truth  which  two  internal  ex- 
tremes would  recognize  and  confess  as  their  own,  the  diffi- 
culties were  overcome  by  a  thorough  study  of  Scripture  and 
a  constant  reference  and  adherence  to  it  step  by  step. 

The  existence  of  a  contract  to  agree,  or  even  of  an  inten- 
tion to  come  to  agreement  at  all  events,  prior  to  the  sufficient 
discovery  of  agreement,  is,  in  so  far,  a  presumption  against 
the  validity  of  a  Confession. 

The  fundamental  fact  is  that  Confessions  in  their  real  na- 
ture, their  real  purpose  and  their  main  usefulness  are  of  the 
order  of  testimony  and  not  of  the  order  of  contract. 

So  far  from  Confessions  being  of  the  nature  of  a  contract 
between  men,  by  means  of  which  they  may  agree  in  their  re- 
ligious thoughts  and  organizations  and  activities,'  and  to 
attain  which,  they  may  add  here  a  little  and  subtract  there 


*  U  is  true  that  the  Preface  of  the  Electors  and  Princes  to  the  Book  of 
Concord  calls  the  Formula  "  a  formula  of  agreement,"  "haec  ijacificatiouis 
formula,"  "  diese  jetzige  Vergleichxing ; "  but  this  phrase  does  not  mean  an 
agreement  as  to  what  the  truth  of  the  confession  shall  be,  but  an  agreement 
that  ivill  follow  from  the  discovery  of  what  the  truth  is.  The  parties  do  not 
come  together,  and  by  a  selection  of  some  points,  and  a  compromise  of  others 
make  the  truth  on  which  they  agree  to  agree ;  but  the  parties  search  out 
the  various  partial  statements,  and  statements  with  light  and  shadow  in 
them,  as  presented  from  the  different  sides,  until  they  discover  the  real  and 
fundamental  objective  fact  as  it  is,  which  fact  convinces  them  all  and  brings 
them  into  agreement. 


58  TTJE    LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

a  little,  Confessions  are  only  real  and  valuable  in  so  far  as 
they  embody  and  reflect  God's  own  Word.  It  is  from  their 
objective  substance,  that  they  derive  their  value.  This  object 
is  uniformly  the  grace  of  God,  as  re\'ealed  in  Scripture,  and 
offered  in  Word  and  sacrament. 

This  objective  and  intrinsically  valuable  content  of  the 
Confession  never  varies ;  and  it  is  not  composed  of  the  assem- 
blage of  propositions  in  which  the  Faith  is  attempted  to  be 
expressed,  but  is  the  reality  of  the  facts  in  the  Divine  will, 
revealed  in  Scripture,  accepted  by  faith,  and  witnessed  to  by 
Confession ;  and  on  which  facts  we  rely  for  our  life  and  sal- 
vation, and  which  we  attempt  to  fix  in  human  language.  Con- 
fessions, as  the  soul's  and  the  Church's  apprehension  and 
expression  of  the  divine  reality,  are  matters  of  conscience. 

So  little  is  the  idea  of  confession,  in  God's  Word,  merely  a 
conviction  of  the  understanding,  that  we  find  it,  in  Scripture, 
to  be  an  acknowledgment  of  man's  going  out  of  himself,  and 
resting  in  the  grace  of  God  in  confident  trust.  It  is  a  move- 
ment of  the  whole  inner  man  that  seizes  the  heart  and  moves 
the  mouth  to  utterance  (Rom.  10:  9-11). 

A  Common  Confession  in  a  Church  is  not  mediated  by  the 
intellect,  or  by  the  thoughtful  arrival  at  a  form  of  words  that 
will  cover  contraries  and  bridge  chasms,  but  it  becomes  com- 
mon and  united  because  the  members  of  the  Church  them- 
selves are  united  in  one  Head,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  all. 

We  cannot  emphasize  too  strongly  that  confession  and  the 
Confessions,  in  so  far  as  they  are  delineative,  and  in  so  far  as 
they  possess  combining  power,  are  the  result  of  other  and 
more  substantial  unities  in  Christ,  and  not  the  cause  of  them. 

Christ,  the  Faith,  the  Church,  the  Truth,  the  Principles, 
the  Doctrine — all  existed  before  they  were  apprehended  and 
set  forth  by  our  faith,  or  formulated  by  our  thought,  or  ex- 
pressed by  our  mouth ;  and  therefore  they  cannot  legitimately 
be  touched,  modified,  softened  down,  or  toned  up  and  height- 
ened by  any  human  agreement. 


VALIDITY.  59 

That  was  the  fatal  luistakc  of  Alelanchthoii/  and  is  the 
undercurrent  of  weakness  in  the  attempt  of  men  to  "get  to- 
gether" on  "a  common  platform  of  faith,"  in  every  age. 
Such  a  confession  is  a  "  phitform,"  a  human  thing;  built 
up  by  man's  thought  and  skill,  and  according  to  his  ideas, 
which  change  from  age  to  age ;  and  cannot  be  the  source  of 
that  strength  and  certainty,  that  comes  from  submissive  an<l 
total  reliance  on  revelation ,  and  that  courses  through  the 
channels  of  the  objective  unity  already  existent  between  the 
Head  of  the  Church  and  its  members. 

If  to  the  above  it  1x3  objected  that  no  particular  Church 
can  claim  to  have  the  objective  and  final  confession,  and  to 
have  as  its  unity  that  objective  oneness  that  holds  together 
Christ  and  His  members,  we  reply  that  to  the  degree  in  which 
the  particular  (Jhurch  is  true  in  faith  and  life,  it  is  within 
the  compass  of  the  pure  faith  and  the  real  bonds  of  union  in 
Christ.  What  holds  true  of  the  accuracy  and  faithfulness  of 
the  old  orthodox  Lutheran  (confessions  as  a  true  reflex  of  the 
objective  content  in  Scripture  is  emphasized  by  the  rational- 
istic but  keen-sighted  Carl  Hase  in  the  following  language : 

"Jene  alte  Orthodoxie, — welche  Lessing,  ihr  ehrwiirdigster 
Gegiier,  wegen  ihres  starken  imd  Kiihnen  Geistes  bewunderte, 
wiihrend  vor  der  neuen  Rechtglaubigkeit  ihm  zuweilen  eben 
so  libel  wurde,  als  vor  der  neuen  Aufklarung, — sie  ist  darge- 
stellt  worden  in  Hirer  ganzen  Kraft  und  Consequenz;  und  eine 
solche  Darstellung,  ohne  irgcnd  eine  (iussre  Riiclsiclif,  schien 
allerdings  der  "Wissenschaft  in  mancher  Hinsicht  forderlicher 
[the  true  Lutheran  would  say,  "schien  allerdings  dem  Zeug- 
nisse  des  Wortes  Gottes  mehr  gemasz"],  als  die  neuern  Con- 
cordate  zwischen  dem  alten  Kirchenglauben  und  der  Philo- 
sophic oder  Unphilosophie  des  Tages,  welche  nicht  selten  in 
scheinbarem  Vereine  von  heiden  Seiten  Widerstrehendes  ver- 


•  The  Confession,  as  being  under  the  laws  of  testimony  (not  of  contract),  is 
susceptible  of  adjustment  to  the  perspective,  proper  for  the  time  in  which  it 
is  uttered ;  and  therefore  Melanchthon  was  justified  in  changing  the  adjust- 
ment (but  not  in  concealing  or  weakening  the  truth)  of  the  Confession,  on 
learning  more  and  more  of  the  nature  of  the  Diet,  until  the  moment  of  its 
utterance. 


60  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

mischen  und  Eigenthumliches  aufopfern.  .  .  .  Eine  Wis- 
senschaft  von  dem  Glauben,  fiir  welcheu  imsre  Vorfahren 
Gut  und  Blut  eingesetzt  haben,  verdient  wenigstens  von  ihren 
Xaehkommen  genau  gekannt  zu  werden.   .   .   . 

''Xiclit  als  wenn  die  Formeln  der  Vorzeit  gel  ten  sollten, 
well  sie  gegolten  haben:  aber  davon  ziemt  Jiinglingen,  den 
kiinftigen  Lehrern  iind  Hirten  der  ]vlrche,  anszugelm,  wovon 
die  Geschichte  nnsrer  Kirche  selbst  ansgegangen  ist,  damit 
sie  die  Zeit,  die  vor  ihnen  gewesen  ist,  nnd  ans  der  die  Ge- 
genwart  geworden  ist,  daher  ans  ihr  ancli  verstanden  wird, 
in  der  wissenschaftlichen  Erinnernng  durchleben,  nnd  fest 
gewnrzelt  in  der  Vergangenheit  vorwiirts  streben  nnd  anf- 
warts. 

The  written  or  forjnulated  Confessions  of  the  Church  are 
an  expression,  in  careful  language,  of  the  objective  substance 
of  the  Confession.  They  were  not  framed  to  show  the  differ- 
ences of  the  writers  as  a  church  party,  or  to  distinguish  one 
church  party  from  another,  though  they  are  thus  used  by 
theologians  and  comparative  historians.  But  they  were 
framed  to  enable  us  to  acknowledge,  indicate  and  defend  our 
objective  Scriptural  teaching  of  God's  Word,  especially  on 
loci  that  have  been  represented  as  different  from  what  they 
are,  by  other  denominations.  The  occasion  of  the  framing 
is  not  necessarily  the  purpose  of  Providence,  or  even  the 
deepest  purpose  of  the  confessors  in  bringing  them  into  being. 
They  were  framed  to  protect  and  preserve  the  truth  and 
the  Church;  and  other  beliefs  and  denominations  are,  at  best, 
the  occasion,  or  the  foil,  furnishing  the  material  for  contrast, 
and  not  the  real  ground  for  the  existence  of  these  formularies. 
Thus  it  was  not  to  distinguish  between  Lutheranism  and 
Romanism,  not  to  designate  comy)aratively  the  differences  be- 
tween what  Rome  taught  and  wliat  Lutheranism  taught,  that 
the  Augsburg  Confession  was  framed ;  but  it  was  to  enable 
Lutheranism  to  confess  the  one  faith  of  the  Scripture  on  such 


>"  Karl  Hase,  Hutter  Redivivus,  Oct..  1828. 


VALIDITY.  61 

points  as  had  been  obscured  or  perverted  by  Rome.  The 
true  faith,  ''the  sum  of  the  doctrine,"  and  not  the  distinctions 
between  the  parties,  is  the  object. 

The  agreement  consequently  is  not  between  the  confessing 
members,  but  is  between  the  Confession  and  the  Scripture. 
The  agreement  reached  between  the  members,  is  not  as  to  what 
they  will  agree  Jto,  but  as  to  what  Scripture  obliges  them  to 
confess  and  binds  them  to  hold.  If  there  be  a  contract  in  the 
confessional  formulary,  it  is  between  the  Lord  and  men,  and 
not  between  men  and  men.  The  strength,  the  sanction,  the 
validity  lies  in  the  relation  of  the  confessors  to  the  One  Whom 
they  confess,  and  not  in  the  relation  to  each  other  as  signa- 
tories. 

The  latter  relation,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  secondary,  and  is 
mediated  between  them  only  through  the  Head  of  the  Church. 
J^either  does  the  number  of  signatories  affect  the  validity, 
the  truthfulness  and  the  strength  of  the  Formulary  as  a 
religious  document  or  a  marker  of  faith.  Otherwise  the 
validity  of  a  Confession  would  often  be  determined  by  the 
political  dexterity  and  the  adaptation  to  governmental  ex- 
pediency with  which  it  was  framed  and  introduced.  Two 
or  three  gathered  in  Jesus'  name  may  confess  the  good  and 
valid  Confession,  and  a  whole  Council  purporting  to  repre- 
sent all  Christendom  might  formulate  an  invalid  Confes- 
sion." 

It  is  on  this  account  that  the  stress  of  Providence,  the 


"  The  same  fact  is  true  with  respect  to  the  validity  of  a  broken  or 
changed  Confession.  Jacobs  says  of  a  Church  that  tries  to  change  her  creed : 
"  When  she  teaches  otherwise  than  they  taught  who  were  her  historical 
ancestors,  she  has  broken  her  unity  with  them,  and  is  no  longer  the  same 
Church,  no  difference  though  the  name  be  retained,  or  however  preponderant 
on  her  side  may  be  numerical  majorities.  If  every  member  would  agree  to 
a  change  in  her  Creed,  this  would  not  change  the  testimony  of  the  communion 
which  was  fixed  at  its  organization.  It  would  only  show  that  the  historical 
successor  was  a  different  Church.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  cannot  amend 
the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  so  as  to  remove  elements  on  which  the 
Tridentine  fathers  insisted,  or  to  include  Protestant  conceptions  of  doctrine, 
without  thereby  ceasing  to  be  the  same  Church  as  that  which  for  three  centuries 
and  a  half  has  recognized  those  decrees  as  the  standard  of  teaching,  and 
excluded  from  the  hope  of  salvation  all  who  disputed  their  authority." — Dis- 
tinctive Doctrines    and   Usages,   p.    92. 

8 


62  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

objective  necessity  of  a  situation,  is  essential  to  bring  forth 
a  valid  confession.  This  is  the  reason  why  a  number  of 
able  scholars  cannot  get  together  on  their  own  initiative  and 
restate  the  old  truths  in  the  terms  of  the  age,  and  have  the 
Church  adopt  the  result  as  her  Confession.  A  Church  Con- 
fession is  that  which  has  been  forced  out  of  the  Church  by 
Providence,  Who  has  put  a  strain  and  a  necessity  on  the  con- 
fessors that  compels  them  to  speak,  and  that  enables  them  to 
come  to  speak  as  with  one  mind  and  one  soul,  in  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit.  The  minor  adjustment  of  phrase,  style  and  outer 
expression,  on  which  agreement  may  be  secured  by  vote  or 
by  predominant  weight  of  scholarship,  only  clothes  and  does 
not  constitute  the  Confession.  All  matters  of  degree,  and 
quality,  and  relative  importance,  and  form,  which  are  mat- 
ters of  judgment,  and  which  need  agreement  between  con- 
fessors, are  not  the  ground  of  the  validity  of  the  Confession. 

The  validity  of  the  Formulary  is  the  validity  of  testimony, 
and  not  of  contract.  The  official  Confession,  formulated 
and  accepted,  is  testimony  as  it  stands  finally,  after  thorough 
cross-examination  and  testing,  in  which  all  the  error  is 
eliminated,  and  in  which,  in  the  best  conviction,  all  the 
truth  remains.  The  agreement  of  many  or  all  men  as  fel- 
low-confessors in  this  one  conviction  is  evidential  and  not 
contractual ;  neither  is  it  essential  to  "  a  good  confession " 
on  the  part  of  the  Church. 

A  strong  light  is  thrown  on  the  real,  that  is,  the  confes- 
sional, meaning  and  purpose  of  a  symbol  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord  itself,"  by  the  manner  in  which  the  Formula  ac- 
knowledges the  preceding  s^^nbols  of  the  Church.  Of  the 
three  oecumenical  creeds  it  says :  "  Because,  of  old,  the  true 
Christian  doctrine,  in  a  pure,  sound  sense,  was  collected  from 
God's  Word  into  brief  articles,  or  sections,  against  the  cor- 
ruption of  heretics,  we  accept  as  Confessional  the  three 
Ecumenical  Creeds  as  glorious  Confessions  of  the  faith, 
brief,  devout  and  founded  upon  God's  Word. 

"Part    II,   569. 


VALIDITY.  63 

"Because  God,  out  of  special  grace,  has  brought  His 
truth  again  to  light,  and  has  collected  the  same  doctrine, 
from  and  according  to  God's  Word,  into  the  articles  and 
sections  of  the  Augsburg  Confession;  we  confessionallv  ac- 
cept also  the  first  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  (7iot  he- 
cause  it  ivas  composed  hy  our  theologians,  but  because  it 
has  been  derived  from  God's  Word)  as  the  symbol  of  our 
time  whereby "  our  Reformed  Churches  are  distinguished 
from  the  Papists,  after  the  custom  of  the  early  Church. 

"We  unanimously  accept  this  also  [the  Apology]  as  Con- 
fessional, because  in  it  the  said  Augsburg  Confession  ...  is 
confirmed  by  clear,  irrefutable  testimonies  of  Holy  Scripture. 

"  The  articles  composed,  approved  and  received  at  Sehmal- 
kald  in  the  large  assembly  of  theologians  in  the  year  1537, 
we  confessionally  accept. 

"Because  these  highly  important  matters  belong  also  to 
the  conmion  people  and  laity,  who^  for  their  salvation,  must 
distinguish  heticeen  pure  and  false  doctrines,  we  accept  as 
Confessional  also  the  Large  and  the  Small  Catechisms  of 
Dr.  Luther  .  .  .  because  they  have  been  unanimously  ap- 
proved and  received  .  .  .  and  publicly  used  .  .  .  and  be- 
cause also  in  them,  the  Christian  doctrine  from  God's  Word 
is  comprised  in  the  most  correct  and  simple  way,  and,  in  like 
manner,  is  sufficiently  explained  for  simple  laymen. 

"These  puhlic  common  ivritings  have  been  always  regarded 
in  the  pure  churches  and  schools  as  the  sum  and  type  of  the 
doctrine  "  which  the  late  Dr.  Luther  has  admirably  deduced 
against  the  Papacy  and  other  sects  from  God's  Word. 

"By  what  has  thus  far  been  said  concerning  the  summary 
of  our  Christian  doctrine  we  have  only  meant  that  we  have 
a  unanimously  received  definite,  common  form  of  doctrine, 
which  our  Evangelical  Churches  together  a7id  In  common 
confess. 


"As  one  of  the  effects,  not  as  the  controlling  purpose,  in  which  case  the 
language  would  have  been  "  are  to  be   (li=tinguished." 

"  "  Die  Summa  und  Vorbild  der  Lehre,"  "  compendaria  hypotyposi  seu 
forma    sans    doctrinse." 


64  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFE.SSIONS. 

"For  that  we  have  embodied  the  above-mentioned  writings, 
viz.,  the  xViigsbiirg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald 
Articles,  Luther's  Large  and  Small  Catechisms,  as  the  sum  of 
our  Christian  doctrine,  has  occurred  for  the  reason  that  these 
have  been  always  and  everj^^vhere  regarded  as  containing 
the  common,'^  nnammously  received  understanding"'  of  our 
Churches,  since  the  chief  and  most  enlightened  theologians 
of  that  time  subscribed  them,  and  all  Evangelical  Churches 
and  schools  have  cordially  received  them.  .  .  Xo  one  who 
is  true  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  will  complain  of  these 
writings,  but  will  cheerfully  accept  and  tolerate  them  as 
witnesses;  no  one,  therefore,  can  blame  us  that  we  derive 
from  them  an  explanation  and  decision  of  the  articles  in 
controversy,  and  that,  as  we  lay  God's  Word,  the  eternal 
truth,  as  the  foundation,  so  also  we  introduce  and  quote 
these  writings  as  a  witness  of  the  truth,  and  a  presentation 
of  the  unanimously  received  correct  understanding  "  of  our 
predecessors  who  have  steadfastly  held  fast  to  the  pure  doc- 
trine." 

In  573,  3,  "Of  the  Antithesis,"  the  Formula  declares,  "Be- 
cause some  divisions  arose  among  some  theologians  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  we  have  wished  plainly,  distinctly 
and  clearly  to  state  and  declare  our  faith  and  confession  con- 
cerning each  and  every  one  of  these  taken  in  thesis  and  an- 
tithesis, .  .  .  for  the  purpose  of  rendoiing  the  foundation  of 
divine  truth  manifest "  and  censuring  all  unlawful,  doubtful, 
suspicious  and  condemned  doctrines ;  so  that  everyone  may 
be  faithfully  warned  to  avoid  errors  diffused  on  all  sides. 


'■''' '"Dasz  solche  fiir  den  gpmeinen  einhelligen  Verstand  unserer  Kirchen  je  und 
allwege  gehalten  worden." 

••  In  the  sense  of  "perception  of  meaning,"  not  in  the  sense  of  "  a  tacit 
agreement  to  construe  things  in  a  certain  way."  See  same  word  at  end  cf 
paragraph. 

"  "  Wie  wir  Gottes  Wort,  als  die  ewige  Wahrheit,  zum  Grunde  legen,  also 
auch  diese  Schriften  zum  Zcur/nia  der  Wahrheit,  und  fiir  den  einhcUiq>-n 
rechten  Verstand  unserer  Vorfahren,  so  bet  der  reinen  Lehre  standhaftig 
gehalten,  einfiihren  und  anziehen." 

'■'*  "  Haben  wir  unsorn  Glanben  und  Bekenntnis  riind.  lauter  und  klar  in  thest 
et  antithesij  das  ist  die  rechte  Lehr  und  Gegenlehr,  setzen  und  erklaren  wollen, 
dainit  der  Oruiid  giitUichcr  Wahrheit  in  aUen   Artikeln  offenhar   (sel)." 


VALIDITY.  65 

...  If  the  Christian  reader  will  carefully  examine  this 
declaration  and  compare  it  with  the  writings  enumerated 
above,  he  will  find  that  what  ivas  in  the  heginnimj  confessed, 
and  wliat  was  afterward  restated,  and  is  repeated  by  us  in 
this  document,  is  in  no  way  contradictory,  but  the  simple, 
immutable,  permanent  truth." 

In  its  hiiihest,  or  religious  sense,  a  S\Tnbol  is  the  Church's 
Confession  of  Faith  springing  forth  from  her  accurate 
and  whole-souled  appropriation  of  the  content  of  the  Word 
of  God.  It  is  the  Church's  witness  and  testimony  of  her 
faith  within  to  the  Faith  without.  As  such  the  Symbol  need 
not  be  authenticated  nor  officially  adopted  or  decreed.  Its 
common  use  speaks  sufficiently  for  it. 

In  the  theological  sense,  a  Symbol  is  an  acknowledged  and 
recognized  delineation  or  summary,  generally  official,  of 
the  Church's  faith  as  drawn  from  the  standard  of  God's 
Word,  in  view  of  a  public  necessity  to  present  or  defend  it. 
Except  where  it,  in  its  own  inner  material,  refers,  by  way 
of  contrast  or  rejection,  to  other  faiths,  or  where  it  is 
within  the  scope  of  its  own  purpose  to  distinguish  between 
its  own  and  other  faiths,  such  distinguishing  is  not  an 
essential,  but  an  accident,  in  its  definition. 

A  Symbol  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense  is  an  officially  recog- 
nized and  accepted  document  which  lays  down  the  Faith  of 
the  Church,  and  to  which  all  teachers  and  ministrants  within 
the  Church  are  expected  to  conform.  As  such,  it  may  be- 
come the  basis  of  an  implied  or  expressed  contract  between 
the  Church  and  those  in  her  positions. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Symbol,  in  its  highest  essence, 
is  the  Church's  Witness  and  Testimony  of  the  faith  within  to 
the  Faith  without."     As  such,   it  implies  and  involves,  as 


"  It  is  fair  to  define  a  Confession  by  its  highest  and  main  purpose.  The 
spiritual  portion  generally  comprises  nearly  the  whole  of  the  document ;  and 
the    agreement    clause    is    insignificant,    and    often    omitted. 

It  is  possible  to  define  man  as  a  biped  or  as  an  animal  with  business 
capacity ;  or  to  define  a  congregation  as  a  corporation  composed  of  those 
who  have  voluntarily  united  and  properly  organized,  under  a  charter,  for 
religious  worship ;  but  these  definitions  are  not  the  ones  to  be  accepted  in 
the  Church. 


66  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

does  all  expression  of  action  in  which  more  than  a  single 
unity  is  engaged,  agreement  of  various  kinds.  It  is  an 
agreement  of  the  truth  it  professes,  with  the  Source  from 
which  the  truth  is  drawn.  It  is  an  agreement  of  the  various 
doctrines  composing  this  truth,  wilh  each  other.  To  become 
recognized  as  a  Symbol  it  involves  an  agreement  "  with 
heart  and  mouth,"  of  its  confessors.  To  become  officially 
recognized,  it  involves  a  concurrence  of  those  duly  authorized 
to  accept  or  reject  it  on  behalf  of  the  Church.  As  an 
ecclesiastical  instrument,  and  as  inserted  into  the  charter 
of  a  religious  corporation,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the 
faith  for  which  that  corporation  exists,  it  may  become  the 
spiritual  basis  of  a  legal  contract  betw^een  Ihe  Church  and 
those  who  hold  her  positions. 

We  have  enlarged  upon  the  subject  of  this  chapter  be- 
cause we  are  impressed  with  the  serious  enfeeblement  of 
the  confessing  spirit  and  the  confessional  principle  in  the 
Church,  if  she  allow  the  great  Confessions  of  her  Faith 
to  drop  to  the  level  of  a  contract.  It  must  be  admitted  that  a 
long  and  hcmorable  usage,  to  be  traced  back  to  the  etyuiology 
and  the  historical  usage  of  one  of  the  chief  terms  used  in 
designating  the  Christian  Confessions,  viz.,  the  word  Symbol 
(for  the  discussion  see  chap,  xiii),  justifies  a  w^eight  of  tra- 
ditional authority  that  may  be  urged  against  our  position. 
We  therefore  desire  to  make  some  analysis  of  the  under- 
lying formal  relations  that  are  embodied  in  the  several  terms 
whose  usage  in  custom,  language,  and  law  will  determine 
the  propriety  of  their  application  to  our  Confessions. 

Let  us  turn  first  of  all  to  the  most  general  and  inclusive 
formal  term,  viz.,  the  word  "agreement."  In  its  widest 
sense,  agreement  is  the  concurrence  of  two  or  more  persons  in 
expressing  a  common  intention,  with  the  view  of  altering 
their  rights  and  duties  (See  3  Saviguy  Syst.  309;  Poll.  Cont. 
2).  It  is  "aggregatio  mentium,  or  the  union  of  two  or  more 
minds  in  a  thing  done  or  to  bo  done"  (I  Com.  Dig.  311 ;  5 
East  10;  2  Sm.  Lead.  Cas.,  241). 


VALIDITY.  67 

An  agreement  in  this  sense  is  Avithoiit  legal  effect  when 
existing  bj  itself,  but  is  an  essential  preliminary  to  every 
true  contract,  gift,  payment,  conveyance  and  compromise, 
and  of  every  voluntary  variation  or  discharge  of  a  contract 
or  other  obligation." 

When  analyzed,  the  essential  marks  of  an  agreement  are 
these:  ''There  must  be  at  least  two  persons;  they  must 
definitely  intend  the  same  thing;  they  must  communicate 
this  intention  to  one  another;  and  the  object  of  their  inten- 
tion must  be  such  as  will,  when  carried  out,  alter  their 
legal  positions,  e.  g.,  by  producing  the  transfer  of  property, 
or  the  creation  or  extinction  of  a  right."  '' 

Such  an  agreement  or  common  intention  involves  a  set 
of  promises  "  made  in  consideration  of  each  other.  If  not 
enforcible  by  law,  an  agreement  is  said  to  l3e  void.  If  en- 
forcible  by  law,  it  is  a  contract."^  It  is  in  that  case  a  writing 
showing  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  agreement  between 
the  two  parties  involved. 

The  narrowest  definition  of  a  contract  is  that  of  Kant, 
who  describes  it  as  "the  united  will  of  two  persons  for  the 
transfer  of  pro])erty."  "*  He  takes  property  in  a  wide  sense. 
Hegel  also  limits  the  term  contract  to  the  transfer  of 
property,  though  more  generally.  Windscheid,  one  of  the 
most  reliable  of  German  writers  on  fundamental  law,  defines 
a  contract  as  consisting  in  the  union  of  two  declarations 
of  intentions.  The  one  party  declares  to  the  effect  that 
he  will  be  a  debtor  to  the  other  party,  subjecting  his  will 
to  the  will  of  the  other  party;  the  declaration  of  the  other 
party  is  that  he  accepts  this  subjection.     Koch  "*  defines  a 


*  "  Thus  in  a  formal  deed  of  conveyance  the  introductory  recital  always 
refers  to  the  agreement  in  pursuance  of  which  the  conveyance  is  executed." 
This  agreement  is  "  the  mutual  assent  of  the  parties  at  the  time  the  deed  is 
executed." 

*•  Rapalje  and   Lawrence  Am.   and  Eng.   Law,  Art.   "  Agreement." 

^  A  promise  is  the  declaration  of  a  person  or  persons,  without  consideration, 
to  do  a  thing. 

^Contract  Act  of  1872. 

^*  Metaphysi.sche   Airfannsgrilnde   der   Rcchtslchre,    pp.    98-103. 

"  Koch  Forderunc/en,  ^69. 


68  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

contract  to  be  a  reciprocal  express  agreement  of  two  or 
more  persons  in  a  common  expression  of  will,  by  which 
their  legal  relations  are  determined.  Blackstone  defines  a 
contract  to  be  an  agreement,  on  sufficient  consideration,  to 
do  or  not  to  do  a  particular  thing.  The  German  code " 
declares  a  contract  to  be  a  reciprocal  assent  to  the  acquisi- 
tion or  alienation  of  a  right.  Savigny  defines  a  contract 
as  the  union  of  two  or  more  persons  in  a  common  expres- 
sion of  will,  by  which  their  legal  relations  are  determined. 
This  broadens  the  field  somewhat  and  includes  some  forms 
of  agreement  which  are  not  obligatory  engagements,  though 
even  Kant  defined  such  relationships  as  that  of  marriage, 
as  obligatory  contracts.  A  contract  must  have  defined  legal 
rights  as  its  object ;  anything  less  is  held  to  be  a  moral  obli- 
gation or  a  mere  engagement  of  honor.  Wharton  defines  a 
contract  as  an  interchange  hij  agreement  of  legal  rights.  To 
be  a  contract,  it  must  concern  a  right  whose  transfer  the  law 
will  compel.  It  must  consist  of  a  business  proposal  and  ac- 
ceptance bearing  on  a  specific  act.  A  contract  is  resolvable 
into  proposal  and  acceptance. 

"  '  Contract,'  therefore,  differs  from  '  agreement '  in  the 
primary  sense  of  that  word,  in  including,  in  addition  to  the 
unity  of  intention  and  the  juridical  nature  of  the  subject- 
matter  constituting  a  simple  agreement,  the  incident  of  one 
of  the  parties  being  bound  to  a  future  performance  or  for- 
bearance, and  of  the  other  party  doing  or  agreeing  to  do 
something  in  return.  On  the  side  of  the  party  so  bound  to 
a  future  performance  or  forbearance,  the  expression  of  his 
willingness  or  intention  to  do  it  is  called  a  'promise',  and 
the  performance  or  forbearance  done  or  promised  by  the 
other  party  is  called  the  'consideration  for  his  promise.'"^ 

The  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  or  the  particular 
Confessions  of  any  church,  are  not  in  themselves,  or  by 
virtue  of  any  mutual  agreement  between  the  confessors  to 


'  AUg.  Landrecht,  1.  5,   ?1. 

'  R.  and  L.,  A7n.  and  Eng.  Laxo. 


VALIDITY.  69 

abide  by  tbem,  or  of  any  implied  agreement  between  the 
Church  and  its  ministry  to  remain  faithful  to  them,  in  any 
wise  a  contract  in  the  above  sense. 

Would  it  not  be  stretching  language  very  far  to  say  that 
a  declaration  of  truth  or  of  rights,  though  joined  in  and 
agreed  to  by  many  persons,  is  of  the  essence  of  contract  ? 
Neither  the  ultimate  basis  of  the  State,  nor  that  of  the  Family, 
nor  that  of  the  Church,  rests  on  contract.  The  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  is  not  even  an  instrument 
of  agreement,  but  one  of  ordination  and  establishment,  and 
rests  on  the  authority  and  power  that  reside  in  the  commu- 
nity, which  arc  expressed  and  defined  in  the  Constitution, 
but  do  not  originate  in  its  features  as  an  agreement. 

The  general  theory  of  Social  Contract,  originated  in 
antiquity  by  Epicurus,  and  in  modern  days  by  the  rational- 
ism of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  is  a  vicious  thing  in  the 
State ;  and  is  still  more  vicious  in  the  Church.  It  is  not  by 
any  choice  or  act  of  volition  on  our  part  that  the  State 
exists.  We  did  not  make  it.  Xo  agreement  of  ours  can 
either  continue  or  destroy  it.  "It  is  not  a  physical  but  a 
spiritual  fact."  ^  And  this  elevation  above  human  choi'^e  is 
more  true  of  the  Church.  No  denomination  lives, — either  as 
to  its  particular  order,  which  is  its  faith,  or  as  to  its  ecclesias- 
tical order,  which  is  its  historical  form, — by  contract.  Men 
cannot  contract  with  each  other  to  testify  to  the  truth.  The 
truth  itself  is  the  high  obligating  motive  and  power  which 
compels  them  both  in  their  agTeement  and  in  their  testimony. 
Hence,  Symbols,  in  our  opinion,  are  not  even  a  sacrad 
compact  or  covenant,  although  they  may  be  thrown  into  the 
quasi  form  of  a  covenant  or  agreement,  in  order  more  con- 
veniently to  gain  universal  assent.  Such  a  form,  however, 
ia  not  determinative  either  of  the  validity,  or  the  accuracy, 
or  the  substance,  or  the  durability  of  a  Symbol.  A  most 
striking  proof  of  all  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  Confession  to 
which  the  term  "Symbol"  was  originally  applied,  and  which 


"  Robert   Ellis   Thompson. 


70  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

is  not  in  the  form  of  an  agreement  between  two  or  more  per- 
sons, but  in  the  form  of  an  individual  declaration.  The 
Apostles'  Creed  says  not  "I  agree  to  believe/'  but  "I  believe." 

But  contract  is  more  than  simple  agreement  or  even 
covenant.  It  is  a  hargain,  and  one  that  can  be  legally  en- 
forced. A  S,ymbol  is  not  a  contract  because  there  are,  as  such, 
no  legal  riglts  in  it.  It  may,  where  State  and  Church  are 
united,  or  in  a  state  religion,  become  the  basis  of  legal  rights, 
and  it  may  in  itself  become  determinative  of  legal  rights. 
But  as  such,  and  without  the  addition  of  that  which  makes 
it  a  legal  instrument,  it  bears  no  legal  authority.  The  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession  does  not  convey  or  preserve  o^vn- 
ership  in  any  church  in  eastern  Pennsylvania ;  although  if 
the  deed  makes  certain  specifications,  leading  up  to  this  Con- 
fession, or  if  there  are  certain  facts  and  decisions  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  local  or  larger  Church  that  lead  up  to  this  Con- 
fession, the  Confession  may  be  the  basis  on  which  ownership 
will  be  decided,  just  as  it  might  be  decided  on  the  basis  of 
any  natural  relationship.  A  Symbol  may  become  the  basis 
of  contract  between  churches,  but  only  as  the  churches  are 
incorporated,  or  are  in  ])ossession  of  a  legal  instrument  cov- 
ering pi-operty,  and  as  the  Symbol  is  recognized  in  the  incor- 
poration or  in  the  instrument. 

Legally,  there  is  something  further  to  be  considered.  The 
fundamental  fact  in  a  contract,  namely,  that  of  an  inter- 
changv,  is  lacking  in  a  Symbol.  Tluu-e  is  no  relation  of  Prom- 
issor  or  Promisee  in  a  Symbol.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  a  con- 
tract that  one  party  has  something  to  give,  which  the  other 
party  receives,  and  vice  versa.  There  are  always  two  parties 
on  opposite  sides.  In  a  Confession  all  parties  give  and  agree 
on  the  one  and  same  thing.    There  is  no  opposite  side. 

In  the  next  place,  a  Symbol  is  not  a  contract  because  it 
does  not  concern  a  right  whose  transfer  the  law  iriU  compel. 
A  Lutheran  cannot  sell  his  property  in  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
fession  as  a  Symbol  and  make  it  effective  at  law.  Moreover, 
the  joint  liability  of  the  parties  in  agreement  in  a  S}Tnbol, 


VALIDITY.  n 

such  as,  for  instance,  that  of  the  signers  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession or  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  unless  extended  bv  legal 
statute,  or  unless  there  be  some  special  personal  obligation 
assumed  by  the  members  individually,  will  not  extend  beyond 
the  range  and  the  life  of  the  corporate  estate.  The  Sjanbol 
would  cease  to  be  such  at  the  end  of  the  lives  of  the 
signers,  and  outside  of  the  regions  they  control,  unless  it  were 
formally  held  in  continuance  and  extended,  wherever  it  is 
extended,  by  a  legal  renewal  of  the  original  formalities. 

If  the  Symbol  is  to  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Church 
in  a  general  corporate  sense,  we  must  remember  that,  to  be 
valid  even  as  a  moral  obligation,  there  would  have  to  be  no 
confusion  between  the  corporation  and  individuals  in  it.  For 
the  corporation  and  the  persons  composing  it  are  in  no  sense 
convertible.  Neither  does  a  corporation  receive  into  its  mem- 
bership the  legal  representatives  of  its  deceased  members, 
and  there  is  a  limit  of  a  certain  number  of  years  on  the  ordi- 
nary contractural  relations  into  which  it  enters. 

The  very  idea,  then,  of  a  contract  is  not  suitable  for  the 
characterization  of  a  Confession.  As  a  frame  of  definition, 
it  does  not  sum  up  the  higher  confessional  relations.  A  Con- 
fession is  the  Church's  united  avowal  of  its  faith. 

The  Church's  existence  and  its  right  to  exist,  to  teach, 
to  judge  truth,  to  affirm  and  condemn,  are  bound  up  in  the 
rightness  and  sureness  of  its  Faith ;  and  therefore  it  may  be 
and  is  exceedingly  important  for  the  Confession  to  compare, 
to  discriminate  and  to  mark  any  or  all  the  facts  of  its  Faith, 
but  only  for  the  ultimate  purpose  of  avowal.  The  primary 
purpose  of  a  Confession  or  Creed  is  not,  as  is  often  stated, 
to  distinguish  one  Faith,  or  one  religious  communion  from 
another ;  but  it  is  to  distinguish  in  order  to  teach,  and  to 
teach  in  order  to  bring  about  a  united  avowal.  Any  creed  or 
confession  or  teaching  which  rests  in  the  terms  of  a  mutual 
contract,  or  stops  short  of  active  testimony  and  avowal  of  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  fails  in  the  one  main  function 
in  which  it  is  of  value  to  Christ  and  the  Church.     For,  con- 


72  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

fession  is  the  necessary  utterance  of  faith  (Rom.  10:  10; 
Matt.  12:  34^). 

The  Confessions  of  the  Church,  especially  the  oecumenical 
creeds,  are  termed  Symbols ; '"  and  the  common  name  for  the 
Book  of  Concord  is  "  The  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Church." 

The  word  "symbol"  draws  attention  to  the  external  and  the 
human  side  of  a  Confession,  and  neither  to  that  inner  sub- 
stance of  it  which  is  the  Word  of  God,  nor  to  that  inner  ap- 
prehension of  it  which  causes  it  to  be  a  witness  of  living 
and  saving  faith.  Its  fundamental  idea  is  the  human  opera- 
tion of  comparing  different  truths  for  the  purpose  of  reach- 
ing a  decision  as  to  them,  and  finally  of  so  marking  the  con- 
clusion reached  that  it  can  be  distinguished  and  recognized. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  term  of  society,  indicating  a  discrimina- 
tive j)rocess,  such  as  we  find,  for  instance,  in  men  of  a  polit- 
ical party  coming  together  to  construct  a  platform ;  or  a  scien- 
tific process,  such  as  we  find  in  the  comparative  delineation 
and  estimate  of  various  creeds  in  the  science  of  "symbolics." 
But  it  does  not  in  the  faintest  way  allude  to  either  the  life  or 
the  power  of  God's  Word  which  springs  up  out  of  the  heart  of 
a  believing  Cliurch  in  the  utterance  of  weighty  and  united 
testimony,  which  is,  indeed,  the  main  and  substantial  thing 
in  the  Confessions  of  the  Church.  The  Confessions  of  the 
Church  are  the  Testimony  of  its  Faitli  to  all  the  world. 

It  is  in  this  sense  also  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  a 
true  Confession.  The  word  "  Symbol  "  is  not  used  by  the 
authors  in  designating  it  in  its  title,  but  they  call  it,  '*  Wieder- 
holung  und  Erklarung  (^tlichen  Artikcl  Augsburgischen  Con- 
fession," "Eepetitio  et  Declnratio.  .  .  .  Augustanie  Confes- 
sionis. 

The  "  Christliche5  Widerholete,  einmiitige  Bekenntniis, 
Confessio  Eidci,"  in  its  title;  and  the  air  of  conviction  and 


=»See  rbap.   XIII.     Cp.   /;</oA-   .,/   Concord,    II,    f.:;:",.  1  ;    537,9. 

^^  The  comparative  idea  appears  in  the  title  of  the  Kormula  in  its  own  sub- 
ordinate pla«\  "nach  Aiileituug  Gottes  Worts  und  summarischem  Inhalt  unser 
cbristlichen    Lehr   beigelegt   und    verglichen." 


VALIDITY.  73 

piety  that  breathes  in  its  pages,  show  how  truly  it,  in  essence, 
is  a  book  of  soul  and  conviction,  and  not  of  comparative  re- 
ligious science.  It  is  only  in  a  later  time,  especially  in 
those  editions  issued  in  the  rationalistic  period  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century,  that  the  term  "Symbol"  begins  to  occur  in  the 
title  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  (Cp.  Hutter  Com  p.  Wittb. 
1610,  p.  10.)  There  is,  in  fact,  no  Confession  of  our 
Church  whicli  terms  itself  a  Symbol ;  or  which,  indeed,  is 
termed  a  Symbol,  when  alluded  to  in  its  vital  and  essential, 
as  apart  from  its  historical  and  ecclesiastical,  relations. 

The  Confessions,  or  Symbols,  are  valuable  because  they 
contain  the  articles  of  faith,  and  the  articles  of  faith  are  the 
substance  of  the  divine  Word  on  each  of  the  various  points  of 
revelation,  to  be  trustingly  received  by  the  sinner  for  his 
salvation.  It  is  found  that  "their  connection  is  so  intimate 
that,  when  one  is  removed,  the  rest  cannot  continue  sound 
and  whole."  " 

The  articles  of  faith  embody  the  things  that  are  to  be  be- 
lieved as  such.  They  treat  of  the  mysteries  of  faith  that 
transcend  the  comprehension  of  unaided  human  reason,^"  and 
that  are  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God. 

The  Symbols  embrace  these  articles  as  they  have  been  called 
forth  from  time  to  time,  as,  in  various  periods,  particular 
parts  and  teachings  of  the  Word  of  God  were  put  under 
stress,  and  tested,  and  purified,  and  preserved  for  us  in  per- 
manent form.  Together  the  articles  constitute  the  Confes- 
sion of  the  Church's  faith.  Since  the  articles  are  found  in 
their  original  and  permanent  form  in  the  Symbols,  the  latter 
are  summaries  of  true  religion,  from  various  points  of  view, 
embracing  the  Christian  faith. 

"They  are  public  Confessions,  drawn  up  after  much  delib- 
eration and  consultation,  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  by  or- 
thodox men,  with  reference  to  certain  articles  of  faith,  so 
that  the  members  of  the  orthodox  church  might  he  removed 


*'  Hollazius  Exam.  Theol.  Acroa7)i.j  p.  44, 
'■lb.,  p.  45. 


74  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

from  the  ignorance  and  heretical  wickedness  of  infidels  and 
he  preserved  in  the  proper  profession  of  the  faith."  ^  "They 
are  called  Symbols  because  they  were  the  tests  of  the  ancient 
Church  by  which  the  orthodox  could  be  distinguished  from 
the  heterodox."  '* 

The  term  "  Symbolical  Books,"  so  far  as  we  know,  was  not 
used  on  the  title-page  of  the  Concordia,  or  '^Widerholete, 
einmiitige  Bekenntmis,"  before  the  Eighteenth  Century.  In 
the  earlier  day  the  confessional  idea  was  the  prominent  one ; 
and  by  Hollazius,  the  last  of  the  old  dogmaticians,  in  the 
middle  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  their  necessity  was  still 
defined  as  ^'to  establish  solid,  permanent  and  firm  concord  in 
the  Church  of  God,  so  that  there  may  be  a  certain  compend- 
ious form,  or  type,  approved  by  universal  consent,  in  which 
the  common  doctrine,  which  the  churches  of  the  purer  doc- 
trine profess,  collected  from  the  Word  of  God,  may  be  con- 
tained; to  furnish  an  account  of  the  Christian  religion  if  it 
be  demanded  by  the  civil  authority,  and  to  distinguish  the 
true  members  of  the  Church  from  her  enemies^  the  heretics 
and  schismatics." '" 

If  now  we  come  to  examine  the  Confessions  for  their  own 
definition  of  their  actual  character,  and  for  any  clauses  that 
may  be  regarded  as  the  binding  clauses  of  the  agreement,  we 
shall  find  none  in  the  cecumcnical  creeds.  The  Augsburg 
Confession  speaks  of  itself  as  the  "Articles  in  which  is  our 
Confession  and  in  which  is  seen  a  summary  of  the  doctrine 
of  those  who  teach  among  us." 

The  Apology  terms  itself,  "A  Reply  to  the  Confutation;" 
and  Melanchthon  says  as  to  signing  it :  "I  give  my  name  so 
that  no  one  may  complain  that  the  book  has  been  published 
anonymously."  The  Schmalkald  Articles  terms  itself  "A 
Declaration  to  stand  on  them,  if  God  so  will,  even  to  death." 
The  Articles  on  the  Power  and  Primacy  of  the  Pope  are 


^'Hollazius   E.ram.   Theol.   Acroam.,  p.   54. 

**  Calovius,  Syst.  hoc.  Theol.,  I.  p.  101. 

^°  Schmidt    Doijmatik,   Trans,    by    Jacobs,    p.    121. 


VALIDITY.  75 

called  "A  harmonious  Declaration  of  Approval ;"  and  by  John 
Brcntz,  a  Testimony  that  ''I  thus  hold,  confess  and  constantly 
will  teach."  The  Small  Catechism  denominates  itself  a 
"Statement  of  the  Christian  doctrine"  in  very  brief  and  sim- 
ple terms  (Preface).  The  Large  Catechism  declares  itself  to 
be  "A  Course  of  Instruction"  (Second  Preface)  ;  and  again, 
"A  Treatment  of  the  Five  Articles  of  the  Entire  Christian 
Doctrine"  (Second  Preface). 

The  Epitome  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  declares  "that 
this  is  the  doctrine,  faith  and  confession  of  us  all,  for  which 
we  will  answer  at  the  last  day  before  the  just  Judge,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  against  this  we  will  neither 
secretly  nor  publicly  speak  or  write,  but  that  we  intend,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  to  persevere  therein,  we  have,  after  mature 
deliberation,  testified  in  the  true  fear  of  God  and  invocation 
of  His  name  by  signing  with  our  own  hands  this  Epitome." 

In  analyzing  this  declaration,  promise  and  testimony,  we 
find  nothing  of  the  essence  of  contract.  There  is  a  testimony 
as  to  their  "doctrine,  faith  and  confession"  (and  a  promise 
not  to  "speak  or  lurite"  contrarily),  made  solemnly  ("answer 
before  the  just  Judge"),  "after  mature  deliberation,"  "in  the 
true  fear  of  God  and  invocation  of  His  name,"  "signing  with 
our  own  hands  " ;  but  that  is  all. 

The  corresponding  clause  in  the  "Comprehensive  Sum- 
mary" is  emphasized  as  a  Testimony  and  Dcctaration.  It 
reads  as  follows : 

"In  the  sight  of  God  and  of  all  Christendom,  to  those 
.  .  .  who  shall  come  after  us,  we  wish  to  testify  that  the 
above  Declaration  ...  is  our  faith,  doctrine  and  confes- 
sion, in  which  we  will  appear  before  the  judgment  seat. 
We  will  neither  speak  nor  write  anything  contrary  to  this 
Declaration,  but  .  .  .  intend  to  abide  thereby." 

We  find  here  no  contract  or  article  of  agreement  but,  first, 
a  Testimony  in  the  sight  of  God  and  all  Christendom ;  second, 
a  Declaration  to  those  who  come  after  us  (and  who  cannot 
therefore  be  the  party  of  the  second  part)  ;  third,  an  Acknowl- 


T6  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

edgment  of  the  substance  as  "faith,  doctrine  and  confession;" 
and  fourth,  a  Promise,  general,  but  impliedly,  to  each  other, 
and  a  Declaration  of  intention  "  to  abide  thereby." 

On  the  whole,  then,  we  may  conclude  that  the  confessional 
element  of  our  Confessions,  and  not  any  agreement  in  them, 
is  their  essential  part  and  gives  them  their  validity.  They 
are  not — except  secondarily — a  solemn  contract  to  regulate 
officials  in  the  church,  nor  a  convenient  mark  by  which  peo- 
ple outside  the  Lutheran  Church  may  recognize  us,  nor  a 
bond  of  union  by  w^hich  we  recognize  each  other.  They  are 
a  witness  and  testimony — uniting  their  confessors  in  the 
cogency  of  the  truth — to  the  Church's  Faith. 

They  arose  not  to  mark  distinctions  between  denomina- 
tions, but  from  the  inner  necessity  of  bearing  witness  to 
the  truth  and  against  error.  Their  most  important  use  is 
not  to  mark  religious  distinctions  in  Protestantism,  but  to 
testify  and  to  teach  within  the  Church. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  Confession  is  to  teach  the  Church. 
Their  testimony  is  to  become  part  of  the  Church's  blood 
and  sinew.  As  the  Catechism  is  already  the  standard  teach- 
ing book  in  every  congregation,  so  the  Symbolical  Books 
should  be  the  great  fountain  whence  should  flow  into  the 
very  life  and  character  of  every  theological  seminary  the 
Confessional  principle. 

Our  ()l)j(M"t  in  training  young  men  in  theology  is  not 
to  give  them  a  knowledge  of  comparative,  historical,  apolo- 
getic, or  even  systematic  divinity,  but  to  make  them  con- 
fessors of  the  Faith  well-grounded  and  able  to  render  every 
man  a  reason  ff)r  it,  living  witnesses,  and  faithful  administra- 
tors of  the  Word  and  Sacraments.  This  Confessional  con- 
ception of  a  seminary  differentiates  it  from  the  scientific 
institution  in  which  theology  as  a  science,  rather  than  the 
true  faith,  is  taught ;  and  our  Church,  both  in  Germany  and 
in  our  own  country,  howsoever  liberal  her  academic,  col- 
legiate and  university  training  may,  and,  in  truth,  should 
be,  can  not  jjossibly  be  made  to  shine  like  a  city  set  upon  a 


VALIDITY.  77 

hill  until  her  seminaries'  chief  aim  is  to  send  forth  wit- 
nesses of  God's  Word  and  confessors  of  the  Church's  Faith  as 
the  future  pastors  of  our  congregations. 

The  Apostolic  innmctions  to  individuals  on  this  point 
apply  with  still  greater  force  to  congregations,  synods  and 
institutions,  and  to  the  Church  as  the  total  of  believers. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  implies  that  presenting  "pure, 
wholesome  doctrine"  aright,  and  reproving  those  "who  teach 
otherwise,"  is  the  main  function  of  both  the  preacher  and 
teacher.  The  great  thing  in  the  Church  is  that  faith  be 
awakened  and  the  Faith  be  watnessed  to  and  preserved  in 
its  purity,  and  the  ways  of  error  be  pointed  out.  "The 
Church  must  direct  the  teachers  to  her  Symbols  and  make 
it  their  duty  faithfully  and  uprightly  to  impress  their 
doctrine."  ** 

Confessions  stimulate  and  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Faith 
and  the  oneness  of  the  Church,  not  because  they  create  it,  or 
form  its  bonds,  but  because  they  point  to  the  deeper  unities 
in  the  body  of  Christ.  "  The  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,"  ^  "hath  put  all  things  under  his 
feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  the  head  over  all  things  to  the 
Church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all 
in  all ;"  *"  that  we  "may  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things,  which 
is  the  head,  even  Christ:  from  whom  the  whole  body  fitly 
joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  sup- 
plieth,  according  to  the  effectual  working  in  the  measure  of 
every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of 
itself  in  love ;"  ■""  for  of  this  body  "Christ  is  the  head,"  *' 
"from  which  all  the  body  by  joints  and  bands  having  nourish- 
ment ministered,  and  knit  together,  increaseth  with  the  in- 
crease of  God."  " 


»«  Mueller,   Einleit.  "' Eph.    1:17.  ss  1 :  22,  23. 

^  4  :15,16.  *"  5  :23.  *'  Col.  2  :   19. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DO  COXFESSIOXS  BIXD  ? 

Intellectual  Liberty  and  the  Ofiicial  Christian  Confessor — Why  the  Church  Asks 
Loyalty  from  those  in  Office — Why  the  Church  needs  Settled  Teaching — Free 
Investigation  and  Confessional  Obligation. 

THE  eagle  chafes,  behind  golden  bars,  in  a  foreign  land. 
It  was  made  to  soar.  It  cheerfully  accepts  the 
limitations  of  bare  cliffs,  and  narrow  crags,  and  snow-capped 
summits,  and  clouds  whirling  in  tremendous  storm;  but  it 
pines  in  confinement. 

If  our  conscience,  heart  and  convictions  are  not  at  home 
in  a  Confession  that  has  not  been  made,  approved  or  chosen 
bj  us,  but  in  ^^'hich  we  find  ourselves,  we  shall  chafe  under 
its  limitations.  We  shall  continually  be  seeing  the  fence 
instead  of  enjoying  the  farm ;  we  shall  be  peering  between 
the  bars,  and  climbing  the  pickets,  and  making  ourselves 
miserable,  in  the  effort  to  convince  the  men  within,  and  the 
world  without,  that  we  are  prisoners. 

Yet  the  sagacious  dog,  more  noble  and  more  civilized  than 
the  eagle,  faithful  to  his  master,  enters  eagerly  into  the  law 
and  confines  of  a  domestic  and  common  life,  and  languishes, 
or  even  dies,  apart  from  the  presence  of  his  master.  One  of 
the  most  forlorn  objects  on  the  earth  is  a  lost  dog — a  dog 
that  has  become  "free,"  that  is,  exiled  from  its  home  and  the 
companionship  and  voice  of  its  master. 

The  man  who  sleeps  within  the  four  limiting  walls  of  his 
house  locks  the  doors  and  lies  down  to  rest  in  peace,  a  free 
soul,  because  he  is  at  home ;  while  the  ill  and  fevered  spirit 
rising  from  its  bed  and  seeking  every  avenue  to  escape  is  a 

78 


LOYALTY.  79 

prisoner,  who  knows  not  why,  and  knows  not  where  to  find 
repose. 

To  some  men  Confessions  are  not  only  binding,  but  galling. 
They  fret  beneath  the  yoke.  Their  hearts  are  not  at  home 
in  the  limitations,  and  the  result  is  inevitable.  A  senti- 
mental desire  for  freedom  impels  thcui,  eagle-like,  to  soar 
above  and  lx\yond  the  vineyard  rather  than  to  work  within  it. 
Yet  limitations  are  necessary,  and  are  a  condition  not  only  of 
life,  and  thought,  and  trutli,  but  of  country  and  achievement, 
and  age,  and  position,  and  also  of  faith. 

Whether  the  accountability  for  rebellion  against  the  lim- 
itations of  a  Confession  resides  in  the  individual ;  or  in  his 
early  trainiug  aud  uncongenial  environment,  or  in  the  Con- 
fession itself,  is  not  always  easy  to  decide. 

The  secret  of  the  whole  matter  is  sometimes  to  be  found  in 
the  man  himself.  Saul  was  an  ambitious,  an  ardent  and 
a  vengeful  man.  Jesus  told  him  that  the  dissatisfaction  of 
his  nature  was  his  own  fault :  "It  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick 
against  the  pricks;"  and  when  he  was  converted  this  self- 
same man  actually  joyed  in  living  within  these  distressing 
limitations,  in  being  a  "slave"  aud  a  "yoke-fellow"  under 
Christ.  Although,  when  Peter  tried  to  throw  the  net  of 
Pharisaic  realism  around  him,  he  yielded  not — no,  not  for  an 
instant — yet  the  thorn  in  his  flesh  was  accepted  with  thanks. 

The  galling  power  of  truth  itself  is  great  to  those  who 
do  not  desire  to  abide  in  and  by  it.  They  feel  they  must 
escape.  They  cannot  breathe  in  the  same  khan  with  Jesus 
of  Xazareth.  They  must  escape  to  the  Bedouin  of  the 
desert ;  or  if  the  Bedouin  are  in  possession  of  the  khan, 
there  will  be  "  no  room  for  the  young  child  in  the  inn." 

A  trustful,  confiding  and  converted  spirit  desires  to  keep 
well  within  the  law  and  will  of  the  object  of  its  confidence, 
and  finds  its  joys  in  the  fulfilment  of  any  given  prescriptions. 
For  such  as  these  there  is  always  the  widest  freedom.  For 
them  there  is  no  law.  Love  has  become  the  fulfiling  of 
the  law,  and  is  unhappy  beyond  the  forbidden  bounds. 


80  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

There  is  a  service  i?!  the  law,  which  is  result  and  satisfac- 
tion ;  a  service  above  the  law,  which  is  joy  and  freedom ;  and 
a  service  under  the  law,  which  is  tyranny  and  bondage.  It 
may  be  the  selfsame  service  in  all  three  case?.  It  is  a 
galling  service  in  bondage,  to  the  weak  man,  the  critic,  the 
dissatisfied  man,  and  the  thinker  of  untamed  instincts.  It 
is  a  service  in  law,  to  the  man  of  serious  conscience.  It 
is  a  service  above  law,  to  the  man  of  ardent  loyalty  and 
generous  affection. 

We  may  conclude,  then,  that  where  there  is  confidence, 
faith  and  trust,  the  Confession  will  not  need  to  bind,  and  can- 
not gall.  But  where  there  is  doubt,  mistrust,  or  any  trace  of 
the  undevoted  and  critical  mind,  the  Confession  holds  an 
eagle  behind  the  bars. 

Has  it  the  right  to  do  so?  Can  it  bind  intellect aally, 
morally,  legally?  If  the  bird  of  freedom  has  been  trapped 
on  his  upper  crag,  and  has  been  brought  unwillingly  as  a 
captive  into  the  confines  of  the  Church,  there  is  no  intel- 
lectual or  moral  riglit  to  hold  him;  but,  if  he  has  come  doM'n 
as  a  freebooter  in  search  of  prey  or  as  an  independent  soarer 
of  spreading  wing,  who  wishes  to  abide  with  us  and  yet 
wall  not  say,  ^'liberty  and  union,  one  and  inseparable,"  it  is 
well  that  he  be  bound. 

The  trouble,  however,  may  not  be  in  the  eagle,  but  in 
the  confining  domain.  There  are  necessary  and  proper  lim- 
its to  the  binding  power  of  Confessions.  ''The  Church  has 
no  power  to  bind  the  conscience,  except  as  she  truly  teaches 
what  her  Lord  teaclies,  and  faithfully  commands  what  He 
has  charged  her  to  command".' 

The  trouble  very  often  is  in  the  man's  environment.  He 
has  not  been  brought  up  to  see  the  need  of  certain  truths, 
not  to  understand  the  importance  of  an  honest  and  clear-cut 
Confession.  He  may  not  realize  the  bearings  of  doctrines 
that  to  him  seem  far  away.  He  is  in  tlie  Confession,  but 
not  thoroughly  of  it,  having  failed  to  appropriate  it;  and  he 


'  Cf.  "Fundamental  Principles  of  Faith  and  Church  Polity." 


LOYALTY.  81 

is  unwilling  to  give  up  his  right,  at  least  abstractly,  to  over- 
step it. 

The  Confirmation  Confession,  most  solemn,  and  made  on 
the  basis  of  the  Smaller  Catechism — which  is  the  Larger 
Catechism,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, yea,  Scri])turc  itself,  condensed  into  manual  form — is, 
like  the  marriage  avowal,  or  any  other  solemn  promise  or 
covenant  with  the  Lord,  binding  in  this  case  for  life.  The 
Ordination  or  Installation  Confession,  which  is  a  similar 
condensation,  but  shows  more  explicit  apprehension  of  the  doc- 
trine, is  similarly  binding.  Yet  the  confessional  bond  is  not 
as  inflexible  as  the  marriage  bond.  To  any  and  all  classes  of 
men  whatsoever,  we  say  that  the  Church  has  no  desire  to  keep 
them  in  the  confessional  cage;  no  right  to  keep  them,  as  it 
were,  in  captivity,  when  they  wish  to  be  at  liberty — as  they 
say — to  worship  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
science. The  door  is  open,  let  them  spread  their  wings  and 
fly  to  that  happier  clime  wdiere  the  limitations  accord  with 
their  conscience  and  more  enlightened  conviction.  "Go  in 
peace,"  we  say. 

A  faith,  a  love,  a  conviction,  an  enlightenment,  an  at- 
mosphere, such  as  the  old  Church,  with  her  heavy  founda- 
tions and  honest  walls  and  bare  brown  rafters,  offers, 
does  not  suit  you.  You  are  restless  here ;  and  even  if  we 
"modernize"  the  old  home,  and  introduce  the  elegancies  and 
conveniences,  and  consign  the  antiques  to  the  flames,  and 
give  you  an  up-to-date  twenty-four-hour  alarm  clock  in 
place  of  the  old  precious  timepiece  of  grandfather,  on  the 
stairs,  and  a  veneered  mahogany  table  in  place  of  the  solid 
old  family  heirloom,  you  will  not  be  satisfied.  The  Scriptural 
doctrine  is  too  heavy  for  you.  You  require  a  modern  news- 
paper treatment.     We  cannot  help  you. 

But  to  those  men  who,  with  the  door  standing  open  before 
them,  nevertheless  do  not  fly,  but  desire  to  remain  with 
us  within  the  limitations,  we  say:  "You  should  observe 
the  order  of  this  old  home.     You  are  not  by  yourself,  alone 


83  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

up  oil  the  rocks;  nor  journeying,  without  responsibility  to 
fixed  relations,  in  'a  far  country.'  You  are  here  in  what 
we  believe  to  be  a  God-framed  order,  and  if  you  elect  to 
stay  with  us,  you  cannot  in  good  conscience  do  so,  with  the 
feeling  of  a  rebel  against  us ;  but  we  must  presume  that  your 
presence  among  us  is  from  a  noble  motive,  and  not  merely 
the  result  of  self-interest  and  personal  convenience,  that 
you  appreciate  our  protective  bulwark  and  believe  in  the 
power  of  our  ])rinciples,  and  that  therefore  you  are  ready  to 
train  yourself  in  accordance  with  our  restrictions. 

"  If  you  go,  you  are  free.  But  if  you  stay  in  our  house,  you 
are  bound  by  the  law  of  our  house,  which  is  our  Confession, 
or,  rather,  by  the  Scripture,  which  is  our  only  rule,  but  of 
which  our  Confession  is  the  faitliful,  trusty,  convenient, 
tested,  proven  and  accurate  witness," 

The  Church  desires  this:  that  tlie  liarmonies  of  the  doc- 
trinal teaching  of  her  sjnnbols  witli  the  pure  Scripture 
doctrine  be  recognized  by  those  that  belong  to  her  and  wish 
to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  her  membership. 

The  Church  asks  no  one  to  give  assent  to  her  doctrine 
without  inner  conviction,  but  she  also  regards  no  one  as 
belonging  to  her,  who  is  not  able  to  make  her  Confession 
his  own.  She  cannot  interpret  her  symbols  so  broadly  and 
unfaithfully  as  to  leave  room  for  every  opinion  that  has 
been  reduced  to  a  minimum  of  Christian  faith. 

The  Church  must  speak  out  decidedly  wliat  slie  believes; 
which  doctrine  she  accepts  in  God's  Word,  and  which  doctrine 
she  rejects  as  being  against  it.  If  it  were  otherwise,  she 
would  open  herself  as  an  arena  for  all  kinds  of  heresies,  and 
would  deserve  her  own  destruction."  Sartorius  goes  to  the 
root  of  the  whole  matter  when  he  says  that  'Tn  giving  up  her 
Confessions,  the  Protestant  Church  gives  up  herself.  But  in 
adhering  faithfully  to  them,  her  lasting  continuance  as  well 
as  her  living  development  is  guaranteed." 


'  Mueller,  Einleitung. 


LOYALTY.  83 

On  account  of  this  necessity,  the  Formula  of  (.^onc^rd  is 
impelled  to  state :  ''As  some  divergencies  have  arisen  between 
theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confessions,  because  of  the 
Interim  and  other  matters,  we  have  desired  to  set  up  and 
declare  our  faith  and  Confession,  'rund,  Imitcr  mid  klar'.  'in 
ihesl  el  aniilhcfii',  i.  e.,  in  the  true  doctrine  and  its  opposite, 
concerning  each  and  every  one  of  these  matters,  that  the 
foundation  of  divine  iruUi  may  he  clear  in  all  the  articles, 
and  all  wrong,  doul)tful  suspicious  and  condemned  doctrines, 
whoever  may  be  disposed  to  defend  them,  may  he  exposed, 
and  every  person  be  faithfully  warned." 

The  supporting  beams  of  our  household  of  faith  must  be 
kept  '  rund,  tauter  und  Mar;'  and  if  your  heart  no  longer 
values  them,  but  has  cast  them  aside,  if  your  love  no  longer 
holds  to  the  principle  of  our  home,  and  you  have  cast  that 
principle  aside,  you  may  not  use  our  roof  and  our  shelter, 
to  attack  the  thing  we  cherish.  If  we  have  not  the  same 
faith,  and  you  cannot  join  our  glad  and  open  adherence  to 
it,  you  ought  not  be  of  our  household.  For  our  liousehold  is 
a  household  of  faith.  Its  communion  and  its  union  con- 
sists of  persons  who  are  animated  by  a  common  faith. 

Our  fellowship  has  been  instituted  to  conserve  the  faith. 
"You  have  the  civil  and  the  moral  right  to  form  your  im- 
pressions in  regard  to  truth.  But  there  the  right  stops. 
You  have  hot  the  right  to  remain  in  our  Christian  union, 
except  as  our  terms  of  membership  give  you  that  right. 
So  easy  is  this  distinction,  and  so  clearly  a  part  of  practical 
morals,  that  the  law  of  the  land  recognizes  it.  You  have 
not  the  right  to  call  yourself  what  you  are  not,  and  to  keep 
what  does  not  belong  to  you." 

Lutheranism  is  the  exercise  of  the  inalienable  right  of 
judging  according  to  one's  own  conscience.  But  it  does  not 
stop  there.  That  is  only  the  formal  side  of  it.  Its  sub- 
stance is  a  positive  result,  a  well-defined  system  of  faith, 
which  is  no  less  precious  than  the  form.  Rationalism  has 
never  been   able   to   clear  itself   from   the   dishonor   of   its 


84  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

evasion,  when  it  pretended  to  bear  the  Lutheran  name,  in  ex- 
ercise of  the  formal  riglit  of  freedom,  and  yet  rejected  the 
Lutheran  result  of  that  exercise  of  freedom,  viz.,  the  glorious 
principle  of  justification  bv  faith. 

The  very  life  of  Lutheranism  involves  her  refusal  to  have 
fellowship  with  rationalism,  whether  it  comes  to  her  from 
without,  or  whether  it  arises  within  the  precincts  of  her 
own  home.  The  Augsburg  Confession  lays  the  foundations 
of  that  home  in  the  confession  of  the  one  Faith  and  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  of  that  Faith.  The  marks 
of  the  Church  are  the  pure  and  sound  Doctrine  of  the  Gos- 
pel and  the  right  use  of  the  sacraments  ;  and  it  is  sufficient  for 
the  true  unity  of  tlie  Church  to  agree  upon  these  two  things. 
This  basis  the  Lutheran  Church  has  declared  as  fundamen- 
tal, and  upon  it,  it  is  obliged  to  abide. 

These  considerations  apply  with  manifold  force  to  those 
whom  we  have  chosen  as  the  pastors  and  teachers  of  our 
household  and  the  pillars  in  our  home.  In  meekness  and  in 
faith  should  they  imjdant  the  ingrafted  Word,  which  is  able 
to  save  our  souls.  We  look  to  them  to  hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  wordsj  to  take  heed  unto  themselves  and  the  doctrine, 
and  to  continue  in  them.  We  look  to  them  to  stand  fast  in 
one  spirit,  with  one  mind  striving  together  for  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel.  We  look  to  them  to  be  of  like  mind,  one  toward 
another,  to  speak  the  same  thing,  to  have  no  divisions  among 
themselves,  but  to  be  perfectly  joined  together,  in  the  same 
mind  and  the  same  judgment.  It  is  only  thus  that  they  can 
really  teacli  our  doctrines.  For  where  confidence  and  unity 
in  the  faith  are  lacking  among  teachers,  there  doubt  immedi- 
ately arises  among  hearers  and  scholars.  But  faith  is  the 
one  thing  needful,  and  doubt  is  the  one  thing  destructive,  to 
the  future  of  our  household. 

We  are  so  sure  that  we  are  right  in  our  confidence  in 
Christ,  in  His  Scripture,  in  our  Church,  in  her  Faith,  as  con- 
fessed in  her  Confessions,  that  we  are  ready  to  act  and  to  take 
the  responsibility  for  those  who  come  after  us ;  as  every  seri- 


LOIALTY.  85 

ous-iiiinded  parent  and  institution  feci  it  their  dnty  to  do. 
We  therefore  train  our  children  in  that  which  we  have  found 
to  be  of  snch  saving  power  ourselves,  and  when  they  are  suffi- 
ciently mature  we  desire  them  to  confess  it  in  a  lifelong, 
gladsome  vow.  This  we  do  not  simply  to  perpetuate  the  in- 
stitution, the  Church ;  not  simply  from  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation — that  is  the  base  insinuation  which  the  world 
casts  up  into  our  face ;  and  while  there  is  legitimate  motive 
in  taking  this  position,  it  is  not  our  highest  and  deepest 
motive.  It  is  the  preciousness  of  our  treasure,  which  moves 
us  to  transmit  it ;  it  is  our  calling  and  vocation  from  the  Lord 
to  bring  up  our  chihlren  in  the  Faith  and  to  hold  (m  to  it  our- 
selves, that  moves  us;  it  is  the  service  which  the  Faith  renders 
in  the  work  of  salvation,  that  moves  us  to  extend  it  to  others. 
This  binding  extension  to  others  we  do  not  make  apart 
from  their  conviction,  but  with  their  free  consent.  Only 
thus  does  the  Church  bind  her  own,  whether  catechumen  or 
public  teacher,  to  her  Confessions. 

If  there  is  any  one  in  this  world  of  whom  the  Church  can 
expect  loyalty,  it  is  her  own  teachers.  They  have  offered 
themselves  for  her  service.  They  have  come  up  out  of  her 
life-blood  and  her  faith.  They  have  been  trained  in  her 
principles  and  her  hopes  and  her  institutions.  They  have 
not  been  taken  unawares.  At  every  successive  step  in  the  pre- 
liminary years,  their  intellect,  their  feeling,  their  conscience 
and  conviction  have  had  opportunity  to  enter  into  honorable 
freedom.  They  know  what  the  Church  expects  of  them,  be- 
fore they  assume  the  vows  of  fidelity  and  service,  viz. :  that 
they  will  make  "a  good  confession  before  many  witnesses." 
They  have  had  a  long  time  to  deliberate,  to  investigate.  As 
a  rule,  they  are  graduates  of  colleges  and  bear  the  degree  of 
M.  A.,  and  are  perhaps  as  old  as  Martin  Luther  was  when  he 
nailed  the  ninety-five  Theses  on  the  church  door  at  Witten- 
burg,  sufficiently  mature  to  know  their  o%vn  faith  and  their 
o^^^l  mind.  If  anyone  in  this  life  ever  had  sufficient  time  to 
consider  an  obligation,  the  coming  pastors  of  the  Church  cer- 


86  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tainly  are  among  them.  The  Church  can  therefore  justly  ex- 
pect them  to  be  faithful,  and  to  enter  her  work  with  a  con- 
vinced and  loyal,  and  not  with  a  critical  spirit. 

The  faithful  and  single-minded  fulfilment  of  such  an  ob- 
ligation is  not  only  not  a  tyrannical  expectation,  but  it  is  fair 
and  equitable  to  all  parties.  It  is  fair  to  the  pastor,  and  pro- 
tects him  in  many  w^ays ;  it  is  fair  to  the  flock,  and  is  a  most 
important  protection  to  them  and  their  children ;  it  is  fair  to 
the  Church,  and  protects  her  in  her  most  essential  principles 
and  work. 

"From  the  conception  of  the  symbol  as  a  common  or  con- 
gregational testimony  to  the  truth,  proceeds,  co  ipso,  its  obli- 
gation upon  ministers,  whose  calling  it  is  to  be  witnesses  of 
the  truth  for  the  Christian  community.  The  symbols  are 
public  confessions,  and  the  preacher  is  a  public  confessor ;  but 
only  then  an  official  confessor  in  the  Church,  when 
he  confesses  himself  in  harmony  with  the  confession  of 
the  church  by  whose  servants  he  is  ordained  a  fellow- 
servant.  And  where  the  preacher  does  not  consent  to  the 
confessions  of  the  church,  by  whose  servants  he  has  been  or- 
dained, he  is  no  fellow-confessor,  and  certainly  cannot  be  a 
preacher  of  a  confession  Avhich  he  does  not  acknowledge.  In 
no  event  is  the  preacher  individually  any  more  a  witness  to 
the  truth  than  the  common  testimony  of  the  church  in  the  s^tu- 
bols.  He  is  not  above  the  symbols,  nor  under  the  symbols, 
but  a  joint  wihiess  with  them. 

"Hence  he  does  not  submit  in  his  ordination  to  some  law  of 
faith,  forced  ui)on  him  by  some  higher  or  extrinsic  authority ; 
but  the  purport  of  his  obligation,  in  giving  his  consent  to  the 
forms  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  symbols,  is  essentially 
this:  that  the  minister,  being  called  to  the  service  of  a  public 
confession  of  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  first  acknowledges 
these  truths  as  his  own  personal  faith.  The  ceremony  of  his 
consecration,  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  ordaining 
minister  and  of  the  assisting  brethren,  indicates  the  fellow- 


LOYALTY.  87 

ship  of  the  ministerial  and  witnessing  office  to  which  he  is 
dedicated." ' 

It  is  the  Confession  through  which  the  minister  publicly 
testifies  his  union  with  Christ  the  Head,  and  with  the  mem- 
bers who  are  the  Church.  And  if  there  is  no  confidence  to  be 
placed  in  his  confession,  or  if  he  makes  it  with  secret  reser- 
vations, it  is  hardly  possible  to  see  how  his  preaching  is  to  be 
confided  in.  Upon  the  ground  of  his  confession  Peter  re- 
ceived his  apostolic  commission.  Paul  also,  in  his  first  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy,  which  may  be  rightly  called  an  Epistle  on  or- 
dination, reminds  that  ,young  minister  very  impressively  of 
his  good  profession  wliich  he  had  professed  before  many  wit- 
nesses. And  in  the  second  letter  in  which  he  brings  to  mind 
his  unfeigned  faith,  and  urges  him  to  stir  up  the  gift  of  God 
which  was  in  him  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  he  further  says, 
^'Be  not  thou  therefore,  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our  Lord 
as  a  faithful  fellow-confessor  of  the  Gospel."  It  is  not  upon 
the  person  of  Peter  and  his  successors  that  the  Church  is 
founded — this  is  a  Romish  error — but  upon  his  faith  and 
confession,  and  upon  liis  successors  in  the  same  faith  and  the 
same  confession.  As  a  co-confessor  of  the  confession  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Church,  the  minister  plants  himself  upon 
that  same  foundation-rock,  upon  which  the  congregation  is 
as  free  from  his  personal  mutability  as  he  himself  is  from 
the  fluctuation  of  his  members.  For  as  the  minister  is  no 
lord  of  the  congregation's  faith,  so  the  congregation  dare  not 
lord  it  over  his  faith  by  the  changing  opinions  of  the  ma- 
jority.* 

Those  who  object  to  the  binding  authority  of  the  Confes- 
sions in  the  teaching  and  witnessing  office  of  the  Church,  do 
not  seem  to  realize  that  the  office  in  its  nature  and  purpose  is 
for  service  toward  the  flock  and  not  for  a  convenience  for  the 


'  Sartorius.      XJber    die    Nothwendigkeit    u.    Verbindlichkeit    d.    kirch.    Glau- 
bensbekenntnisses. 

*  Seiss,  Ev.  Rev.,  IV,  pp.  16-17. 


88  TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

utterance  of  the  individual.  The  individual  becomes,  by  free 
will  indeed,  and  yet  really,  an  organ,  a  representative. 

The  binding  character  of  the  principles  or  instructions  of 
a  house  or  firm,  in  ordinary  business  relations,  is  regarded  as 
unquestioned,  and  its  breach  would  not  be  tolerated  for  a 
moment.  For  a  representative  of  any  house  to  represent  it 
with  reservations,  to  mingle  doubt  and  suspicion  in  his  state- 
ments, is  treachery  and  sufficient  reason  for  immediate  dis- 
charge. The  same  principle  is  operative  in  the  binding  char- 
acter of  the  Church  Confessions  upon  its  representatives. 
They  are  bound,  not  in  contract,  but  in  the  nature  of  the 
case.  In  both  cases  the  representatives  do  not  lose  their 
freedom  in  entering  the  service;  they  are  free  to  be  true  to 
the  principles  in  whose  interests  they  serve,  and  tliey  are 
free  to  quit  the  service.  They  are  not  free  to  be  untrue  to  the 
principles  and  to  contiiuie  the  service. 

It  is  clear  that  the  Church,  which  claims  to  be  a  faithful 
and  reliable  witness  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  whom  has 
been  committed  the  office  of  the  Word,  cannot  agree  that 
everyone  within  her  should  teach  according  to  his  own  thought 
of  what  is  well,  or  what  he  desires ;  but  if  she  is  to  fulfil  her 
calling,  and  is  not  herself  to  disintegrate,  she  must  declare 
that  only  that  teaching  be  accorded  authority,  and  be  pro- 
claimed, which  accords  with  the  existing,  historically- 
founded  and  publicly-recognized  faitli." 

Those  who  demur  against  this  proposition,  which  seems  to 
be  almost  self-evident,  do  so  from  another  point  of  view,  viz. : 
on  the  ground  of  tlio  fundamental  right  of  Protestantism,  a 
right  without  which  it  itself  could  not  have  come  into  exist- 
ence, namely,  the  right  of  free  investigation,  which  dare  not 


'  The  teaching  oath  was  in  use  in  the  Roman  Church  before  the  Reforma- 
tion. In  1533,  Luther,  Jonas  and  others  enacted  a  statute  requiring  can- 
didates for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Theology  to  swear  to  the  incorrupt  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel  as  taught  in  the  symbols.  After  the  Interims  and  the  hardening 
of  the  lines  in  the  states,  in  the  middle  of  the  century,  subscription  began  to 
be  enforced  at  times  under  pain  of  deposition  and  exile. — Kollner  Symbolik 
I,    pp.    106   sqq. 

Modern  forms  of  subscription,  as  of  ordination  and  worship,  vary  greatly 
in   the  European   States,   and   also   in  the  American   Church. 


LOYALTY.  89 

be  bound  or  limited  by  any  human  formularies,  but  which 
acknowledges  the  Scripture  alone  (sometimes  not  even  Scrip- 
ture) as  its  judge. 

They  overlook  the  fact,  however,  that  the  right  of  free 
investigation  is  not  abridged  in  the  least  by  Confessional  ob- 
ligation. For,  as  v.  Burger  points  out,  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  full  of  the  good  assurance  that  her  Confessions  will  stand 
the  test  of  every  investigation  according  to  the  Scripture ;  and 
she  does  not  ask  for  faithfulness  toward  her  Confession  as  an- 
tithesis to  free  investigation,  but  upon  the  ground  that  such 
an  investigation,  most  ample  and  searching  and  thorough, 
most  free  and  yet  duly  and  properly  appointed,  has  been 
made  in  time  past,  and  shall  have  been  made  as  a  sufficient 
and  thorough  preliminary  in  each  individual  case. 

The  investigation  should  be  so  broad  indeed  as  to  include 
in  its  field  not  only  the  Confession,  but  also  tlic  conscience 
of  the  investigator,  so  that  he  may  be  sure  in  advance  that  he 
is  willing  to  bring  every  thouglit  and  imagination  of  his  own 
into  captivity  to  Christ ;  and  that  lie  is  free  from  a  constitu- 
tional instinct  which  leans  toward  other  Confessions,  and  to- 
ward giving  battle  to  the  Confession  of  his  Church  to  weaken 
or  destroy  it ;  and  that  his  chief  concern  in  the  office  about 
to  be  assumed  is  not  the  philosophical  one,  which  is  the  ex- 
altation of  pure  reason,  nor  the  scientific  one,  wliich  is  the 
exaltation  of  pure  natural  law  and  fact,  but  the  real  con- 
fessing motive,  which  is  the  exaltation  of  pure  faith,  and 
which  works  to  the  strengthening  and  establishing  of  the 
Church  as  the  institution  of  faith. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  teacher's  intellect  may  see  things 
in  a  different  light  in  different  stages  of  life,  and  that  there 
may  be  a  development  of  the  mind,  or  of  science  to  which 
the  mind  is  drawn,  which  may  shake  the  faith  of  the  man  in 
his  Confessions,  and,  if  he  be  of  good  conscience,  will  put  him 
out  of  touch  with  them.  For  conscience  is  and  ever  should 
be  supreme ;  and  where  a  man  is  convinced  that  his  salvation, 
intellectual  and  spiritual,  is  outside  of  the   Confession,   it 


90  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

becomes  his  duty  to  infonn  the  Church.  The  right  of  protest, 
properly  guarded  as  to  weight  of  substance  and  motive,  still 
remains  unshattered  in  the  mother  of  Protestantism.  But 
"protest"  as  an  intellectual  and  ecclesiastical  convenience  is 
an  abuse  of  the  most  sacred  and  most  exceptional  right  of  the 
Christian.  When  the  exception  becomes  the  rule,  and  the 
])rotesting  habit  becomes  chronic,  we  may  safely  conclude 
that  it  is  evaluated :  that  its  source  is  an  over-exaggerated  esti- 
mate by  an  individual  of  the  importance  of  his  own  reason- 
ing powers  in  contrast  with  the  combined  judgment  and  wis- 
dom of  the  Church ;  and  that  he  conceives  of  his  ecclesiastical 
position  much  in  the  same  way  in  which  a  mule  regards  his 
stall,  as  a  s])herc  in  which  he  may  give  vent  to  his  critical 
faculties  by  continuous  reaction,  without  restraining  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  the  owmers  of  the  stable.  IS^ature  has 
endowed  such  a  "  ])rotestant "  with  extraordinary  gifts  of 
])('(1;il  reaction,  aiul  he  must  be  free  to  exercise  them  against 
whatever  may  come  within  the  range  of  contact. 

We  nnist  never  forget  that  the  Truth,  as  a  general  principle, 
is  the  quality,  but  not  the  essence,  of  the  Confession;  and  that 
(pudity  is  only  fornudly  and  not  actually,  superior  to  essence. 
In  i-eal  life,  essence  with  quality  is  of  more  service  and  less 
hindrance  than  quality  without  essence.  In  the  life  of  the 
Church  the  use  of  the  substance  of  the  Confession  is  of  more 
ordinary  and  regular  importance  than  the  critical  devotion 
to  quality  which,  itself,  without  the  essence,  can  scarcely  be 
ke]it  free  from  a  foreign  essence. 

Those  clerical  scholars  who  exalt  intellectual  freedom 
above  si)i  ritual  freedom,  and  who  seek  it  ho  fore  they  seek 
the  things  of  the  kingdom,  do  not  normally,  nor  usually,  come 
to  the  Confessions  with  a  really  impartial  mind.  They  come 
unconsciously  swollen  with  prejudice  of  quality,  with  phil- 
osophic theory,  and  thus  they  propose  to  test  the  essence. 
They  are  no  more  free  than  is  the  devout  and  loyal  mind,  in 
ap])roaching  the  Confession. 

A  critical  attitude,  one  in  which  unverified  doubt  is  richly 


LOYALTY.  91 

suggestive  and  springing,  does  not  bring  an  uninfluenced  state 
of  mind  to  the  investigation  of  the  truth,  lie  who  is  in  a 
critical  attitude,  or  who  already  believes  that  the  Confession 
is  not  correct,  is  in  a  ])Osition  which  i)revents  him  from  being 
a  devoted  teacher  of  the  Church. 

He  who,  in  advance,  is  a  party  against  or  suspicious  of  the 
Church,  should  not  desire  to  he  commissioned  as  her  servant. 
He  who  is  a  faithful  teacher  of  the  Church  confesses  and 
teaches  the  Confession,  not  because  the  Confession  forces 
him  to  do  it  as  a  law  laid  upon  him,  but  because  he  recognizes 
and  acknowledges  the  Scri])tural  truth  in  the  Confession. 
Therefore  he  also  assumes  the  obligation,  not  in  so  far  as 
the  symbol  agreesi  with  the  Scripture,  but  hecause  it  does 
so.  Without  this  conviction,  ho  should  not  desire  member- 
ship, much  less  public  service  in  the  Church. 

But  is  there  no  freedom  in  the  Church ;  is  there  no  con- 
sideration for  the  various  growing  and  maturing  convictions 
of  students;  are  there  no  rights  for  those  who  have  faithfully 
accepted  the  Church's  Faith,  and  approved  themselves  as  its 
pastors  and  juiblic  teachers  ?  Is  there  no  room  to  be  left  for 
the  develo])ment,  progress  and  adjustment  of  the  Faith  under 
the  new  light,  new  scholarship,  and  the  new  conditions  which 
each  successive  generation  brings  with  it  ?  Yes,  there  is  large 
room — the  Church  must  welcome  all  new  light,  new  research, 
and  new  ]irogress ;  but  its  confessional  principle  and  its  safety 
— as  the  only  protection  of  Protestantism  against  individual- 
ism— require  that  such  new  teaching  be  not  private,  or  ex- 
perimental, or  a  prerogative  of  one  or  a  few;  but  that  it  first 
be  tested  by  the  Church,  and  be  officially  formulated  and 
accepted  before  it  be  taught. 

The  binding  power  of  the  Confessions  is  with  reference 
to  all  the  facts  of  principle  or  doctrine,  and  not  to  the  human 
side  of  their  statement  as  such.  Here  they  difi^er  from  Scrip- 
ture, the  only  rule.*    We  are  not  bound  to  assert  and  confess 


•  Not  being  inspired. 


93  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  absolute  correctness  of  their  method  of  applying  every 
Scripture  passage  cited,  or  every  historical  allusion  intro- 
duced, or  of  every  form  of  logical  proof  they  employ ;  but  we 
are  bound  in  conscience  to  that  which  the  Confessional  writ- 
ings declare  to  be  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
Some  of  the  Confessions  are  very  free  and  occasional,  others 
are  very  well  considered  and  balanced  in  their  form,  just  as 
is  the  case  with  their  Rule,  the  Scriptures.  Our  obligation 
is  not  on  these  points,  but  on  the  content  and  sum ;  in  the 
spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  of  their  teaching. 

The  obligation  assumed  is  not  a  contract  in  the  strict  or 
legal  sense  of  the  term,  unless  there  is  a  property  considera- 
tion or  a  salary  involved,  in  which  case  the  obligation,  if 
used  as  a  basis  for  legally  binding  rights  and  property  to 
principle,  becomes  amenable  to  the  law  of  the  land.  But  as 
a  religious  obligation,  it  is  not  a  contract  which  requires  a 
consideration  of  value  to  make  it  valid,  nor  a  promissory 
oath ;  but,  as  a  general  ecclesiastical  act,  it  is  in  the  form  of  a 
vow  to  hold  and  to  teach  the  Confession  with  the  help  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  this  light,  the  obligation  to  the  Confessions 
is  unassailable.  The  Church,  if  she  is  true  to  her  Lord,  her- 
self and  her  members,  has  the  right  and  duty  of  demanding 
it. 

After  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  general  relations 
between  Faith  and  Truth,  between  Freedom  and  Loyalty, 
between  Liberty  aiul  Standing  Order,  between  Criticism  and 
Service,  between  a  Call  and  an  Acceptance,  only  those  could 
dispute  the  propriety  of  such  an  obligation  who  find  them- 
selves outside  the  Confession,  but  who  desire  to  remain  in  the 
service  from  other  than  the  highest  motives;  or  by  those  who, 
influenced  by  a  false  ideal  of  the  abstract  rights  of  truth, 
desire  to  be  unfettered  in  making  their  own  confession  effec- 
tive. But,  as  V.  Burger  observes,  to  ask  freedom  from  the 
Church  itself  to  do  this,  is  not  any  longer  a  right  of  her  ser- 
vants, but  a  violation  of  the  same. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE  RISE  OF  THE  CONFESSIO^^AL  PRIJsTCIPLE 
m  THE  CHURCH. 

Faith  Within  Manifests  Itself  in  Outer  Witness — Testimony  Develops  into  the 
Confession — The  First  Confessions  in  the  New  Testament — The  Pentecostal  and 
Baptismal  Confessions — The  Fixed  Confessional  Forms  of  the  New  Testament — 
The  Confessions  of  the  Second  Century. 

FAITH  is  tlio  divinely  wrought  and  spontaneous  con- 
fidence and  devotion  of  the  soul  to  that  to  which  it 
clings.  It  may  be  a  devotion  to  ])rinciples,  or  to  principles 
incarnate,  i.  e.,  to  a  person. 

As  soon  as  it  becomes  a  part  of  the  soul's  experience,  it 
rushes  to  all  possible  pathways  of  utterance.  It  testifies  by 
the  eye,  by  the  lingering  thought,  b}'  the  lip,  and  by  the  act. 
But  this  new-born  confidence  and  devotion  affects  and  often 
changes  the  most  important  relations  of  life;  and  because 
of  the  supreme  character  of  its  trust,  it  willingly  makes 
new  adjustments  in  experience,  and  testifies  to  their  exist- 
ence. 

It  thus  enters  the  realm  of  history,  primarily  as  an  in- 
formal and  spontaneous  modifier  of  all  that  it  touches,  but 
finally  as  a  witness  to  great,  final  and  formal  changes  in  the 
historical  order.  Thus  the  devotion  of  personal  love,  first 
expressing  itself  spontaneously  and  on  occasion,  gradually  be- 
comes a  regular  confessional  manifestation,  and  finally  issues 
in  a  solemn  covenant,  involving  change  of  relationship  to  all 

10  ^^ 


94  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  world  and  transplanting  the  potencies  of  a  long  historical 
development. 

It  is  in  this  way  that  faith  in  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  grace  and 
glory,  first  rising  in  the  hearts  of  a  few,  and  then  in  an  ever- 
Avidening  circle  of  followers,  has  developed  gradually  from 
spontaneous  and  single  confessions  of  devotion  to  a  complete 
change  of  relationship,  and  finally  into  a  solemn  and  formal 
icstimony,  covering  the  whole  field  of  principles  involved 
in  the  change  of  historical  relationships,  and  summed  up, 
from  time  to  time,  and  especially  under  the  arraignment  of 
doubt  and  aspersion  from  without,  into  a  deliberate  and  doc- 
umentary Declaration  of  the  Church,  respecting  its  various 
relations  to  its  Lord  and  Head ;  and  from  which,  in  turn,  its 
subordinate  relations  to  tlie  other  issues  of  life  are  de- 
termined and,  as  may  become  necessary,  are  formulated. 

Tluis  the  Confession  of  the  Christian  Church  is  a  confes- 
sion springing  from  faitli  in  Christ.  The  more  true  its  Con- 
fessional principle  is,  the  less  will  it  start  with  abstract  dog- 
matic relations,  and  the  more  will  it  centre  in  Him  in  Whom 
is  all  the  Church's  trust.'  The  Church  confesses  her  Head, 
and  the  Head  in  turn  confesses  its  members  (Matt.  10:  32). 
There  is  nothing  in  the  true  Church's  Confession  which  is 
not  at  least  an  inference  from  its  Lord's  person  or  doctrine 
or  work. 

The  first  spontaneous  utterances  of  the  Church's  Confes- 
sion are  very  interesting.  We  hear  Andrew,  hastening  out 
and  seeking  his  own  brother,  sa^'ing  to  him,  '*We  have  found 
the  Messiah."  We  see  Nathanael  coming  to  Jesus  and  confess- 
ing, ''Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of 
Israel."  We  discover  Xicodemus  and  the  Samaritan  woman 
moved  spontaneously  to  at  least  a  temporary  and  incomplete 
confession.  We  find  Matthew,  the  man  of  acts,  confessing 
the  Lord  completely  by  his  sudden  severance  of  existing 
earthly  relations.     We  hear  Peter,   in   a  time  when  many 


'  This   Is   true   of  the   Lutheran   as  over   against   the   Reformed   Confession. 


OEIGIX    OF    CONFESSIOXALTSM.  95 

deserted  the  Lord,  declaring,  "Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life,  and  we  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."  We  behold  the  man  born  blind 
brought  by  the  act  and  word  of  Jesus  to  say,  ''Lord,  I  be- 
lieve on  the  Son  of  God."  We  hear  Martha  from  beneath  the 
dark  cloud  exclaim,  "Yea,  Lord ;  I  believe  that  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come  into  the  world." 
Every  one  of  these  spontaneous  confessions  contains  the  germ 
of  a  more  formal  credal  statement. 

But  the  high  point  of  spontaneous  apostolic  Confession 
was  reached  by  Peter  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  long 
before  the  Resurrection,  and  by  Thomas  thereafter.  These 
two  confessions  deserve  to  be  contrasted.  The  first  one  is 
based  on  more  imperfect  perception  and  less  scientific  ma- 
terial, but  on  more  glowing  faith.  The  second  one  is  based 
on  experimental  evidence  of  the  most  definite  and  conclusive 
character.  The  one  is  by  the  most  ardent  and  the  other  by 
the  most  pessimistic  of  the  apostles.  Yet,  strange  to  say, 
the  first  one,  the  one  of  ardent  impulse,  is  most  objective; 
and  the  second  one,  the  one  of  cold-blooded  scientific  exami- 
nation of  testimony,  is  the  most  subjective  one.  Which  of 
the  two  the  Lord  preferred  need  not  be  stated.  For  Peter's 
Confession  He  had  nothing  but  pure  praise;  for  Thomas' 
Confession  He  had  a  comparison  that  implied  rebuke: 
"Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed." 

To  our  Lord,  then,  the  confession  of  a  living  Church  is 
more  than  that  of  a  dead  historico-critical  dogmatic.  So 
much  emphasis  did  Christ  place  upon  the  inner  conviction 
and  the  outer  confession  of  faith  in  Himself,  that  He  declared 
to  Peter,  what  Avas  the  actual  fact,  as  we  shall  see,  that  it  was 
on  this  rock  of  inner  conviction  and  outer  confession  that  His 
Church  would  be  built.  In  the  light  of  these  words,  His 
declaration  of  Luke  12 :  8,  which  makes  the  public  acknowl- 
edgment of  Himself  in  His  person  and  work  the  great  test 
of  true  membership  in  Him,  takes  on  a  new  meaning ;  and  in 
the  light  of  Peter's  Confession  in  Matthew  16:1G,  the  same 


96  TEE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

disciple's  later  three-fold  denial,  followed  by  a  tliree-fold 
searching  question  to  Peter  after  the  Kesurrection,  shows 
what  pre-eminence  the  Lord  attribnted  to  a  Confession  flow- 
inii-  ont  from  the  deep  conviction  of  faith,  and  loyally  main- 
tained in  the  hour  of  greatest  crisis. 

The  pre-eminent  importance  of  the  dnty  of  faithfnl  con- 
fession was  also  shown  by  Christ  Himself  in  His  own  honr  of 
trial,  when  Tie  stood  before  Pontius  Pilate  and  made  Con- 
fession as  to  Himself,  declaring  that  He  was  born  and  had 
come  into  tlie  world  for  the  purpose  of  bearing  testimony  to 
the  truth. 

Tims  from  the  very  start  of  Christianity,  faith  has  risen 
into  confession,  and  confession  has  taken  the  external  form 
of  a  Confession.     ''In  a  certain  sense,"  claims  Schaif,"  "it 
may  be  said  tliat  the  Christian  Church  has  never  been  with- 
out a  creed    [EccJcsid  sine  si/mhoUs  mil  lit).     The  baptismal 
formula  and  the  words  of  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
are  creeds.     Tlicsc  and  the  Confession  of  Peter  antedate  even 
the  birth  of  the  Chi-istian  Church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
The    Church    is,    iu<h'cd,    not    fouuih'd    (»n    symbols,    but   on 
Christ;  not  on  any  words  of  man,  but  on  the  Word  of  God; 
yet  it  is  founded  on  Christ  as  confessed  by  men ;  and  a  creed 
is  man's  answer  to  Christ's  question,  man's  acceptance  and 
interpretation  of  God's  Word.     Hence  it  is  after  the  memor- 
able confession  of  Veicv  that  Christ  said,  'Thou  art  Pock,  and 
uj)on  this  rock  I  shall  build  my  Church,'  as  if  to  say,  'Thou 
ai't  the  Confessor  of  Chi'ist,  and  on  this  C\)nfession,  as  an 
immovable  rock,  T  shall  bnihl  my  Church.'     Where  there  is 
faitli,  there  is  also  ])r()fession  of  faitli.      As  'faith   without 
works  is  dead,'  so  it  nuiy  be  said  also  that  faith  without  con- 
fession is  dead." 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Church  was  established, 
and  immediatcdy  thereafter,  there  was  only  one  Article  of 
Faith.     All  those  who  confessed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  were 


'  Creeds  of  Christendom,   I,   p.   5. 


ORIGIX    OF    CONFESSIOXALISM.  9? 

baptized  at  once,  without  the  more  explicit  instruction  that 
preceded  baj)tism  in  later  days.  This  first  rudiment  of  Con- 
fessionalism  in  the  new-born  Christian  Church,  which  con- 
sisted of  faith  in  Christ  as  its  one  objective  content,  and 
which  became  recognized  as  the  standard  of  a  good  Christian 
Confession,  developed  under  the  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
through  the  Word,  into  a  gradual  consciousness  of  the  whole 
content  of  Christian  faith. 

"Out  of  this  one  'Article  of  Faith,'  viz.,  of  'Jesus  the  Mes- 
siah,' it  followed,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  whole 
conception  of  that  which  the  Messiah  should  be  in  the  riglitly 
understood  letter  and  s])irit  of  the  Old  Testament  promises, 
was  transferred  to  Him,  so  that  He  was  recognized  as  the 
lledeenier  from  sin,  the  Ivider  of  tlie  kingdom  of  God,  to 
AVhom  one's  whole  life  was  to  be  consecrated,  Whose  laws 
were  to  be  followed  in  every  respect,  Who  revealed  Himself 
by  the  im])artation  of  a  new  divine  power  of  life,  which 
conferred  u})on  those  redeemed  and  ruled  by  Him,  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  forgiveness  of  sin  received  from  Him,  and  which 
was  to  be  the  pledge  of  all  the  gifts  that  were  to  be  granted 
them  in  His  kingdom. 

"He  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  also  thereby 
acknowledged  Him  as  the  infallible  Prophet  of  God,  Whose 
instruction,  as  He  Himself  had  imparted  it  upon  earth,  and 
as  He  further  imparted  it  through  the  Apostles,  iuto  whom 
He  had  put  new  souls,  would  also  further  be  appropriated 
by  Himself. 

"Therefore  baptism  was  at  this  time  characterized  as  to  its 
peculiar  Christian  import  according  to  this  one  Article  of 
Faith,  which  constituted  the  essence  of  Christianity,  as  a 
Baptisui  U})on  Jesus,  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  as  Messiah. 

"It  is  true  that  one  cannot  positively  conclude  from  this 
characterization  of  baptism  that  the  Formula  of  Baptism 
was  not  something  else.  Yet  it  is  probable  that  in  the  orig- 
inal Apostolic  Formula  of  Baptism  only  this  one  point  was 
emphasized.     This  shorter  Baptismal  Formula  contains  in 


98  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

itself  all  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  which  Christ  used 
at  the  institution  of  Baptism.  It  includes  the  whole  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  in  itself;  but  the  consciousness  of  this  content 
was  not  yet  developed  in  the  baptismal  subject."  ' 

This  Baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  with  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  2:  38),  un- 
doubtedly implied  also  a  Confession,  in  a  more  explicit  forn\, 
of  the  exaltation  of  the  crucified  Jesus,  "that  same  Jesus 
whom  God  hath  made,"  that  same  Jesus  "  whom  ye  have  cru- 
cified, both  Lord  and  Clirist"  (Acts  2  :  ?A\).  Such  may  have 
been  the  earliest  actual  form  of  Christian  Creed. 

It  is  very  clear  from  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  that  some 
simple  Confession  was  connected  with  the  administration  of 
Baptism  from  the  beginning.  The  Eunuch  said,  "What 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?''  Philip  said,  "If  thou  bc- 
licvest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  The  Eunuch  an- 
swered and  said,  *T  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God."  Then  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  (Acts  8:  37,  38). 
The  baptisms  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  all  involve 
a  brief  Confession.' 

The  words  of  our  Lord,  "Into  llic  luime  of  the  Eather  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Si)irit,"  in  instituting  baptism 
as  the  means  of  grace,  and  membership  in  the  C'hurch, 
were  probably  used  as  a  Eormula  by  candidates  for  baptism 
in  confessing  their  faith  at  a  very  early  date,  and  developed 
in  the  West  into  the  Apostolic,  and  in  the  East  into  the 
Nicene  Creed. 

Whether  the  summaries  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  c.  g.,  Romans 


'  Neander,  Oeschichtc  der  Pfianzung  und  Leiinnrj  dcr  ChristUrhcn  Kirche 
durch  die  Apostcl,   I,  pp.   26-28. 

*  "  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  where  baptism  is  mentioned  historically  in 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (Acts  19  :  5  ;  etc.), 
and  not  into  the  triune  name  (Matt.  28:  19)  :  but  the  surprise  of  Paul  in 
Acts  19:  3,  that  any  one  could  have  been  baptized  without  hearing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  fair  evidence  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  mentioned,  whenever 
Christian  baptism  was  dispensed  (Observe  the  force  of  the  illative  in  Acts  19  ; 
3  ) ." — Denney. 

For  the  treatment  of  this  problem  as  it  affected  the  early  centuries  of 
Church  History  and  the  development  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  see  pp.  101  sqq. 


ORIGIN    OF    CONFESSION ALISM.  09 

1 :  3,  "  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh ;  and  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resnrection  from  the  dead;"  and  1  Cor.  15:  3,  4,  "How 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures; 
and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third 
day  according  to  the  scriptures;  "  and  2  Thess.  2:  13,  "  God 
hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth:  where- 
unto  he  called  you  by  our  gospel,  to  the  obtaining  of  the 
glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore,  brethren,  stand 
fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught, 
whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle;"  and  1  Tim.  3:  IG,  "God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of 
angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world, 
received  up  into  glory;"  and  Titus  3:  1-8,  "The  kindness 
and  love  of  God  our  Saviour  toward  man  appeared,  not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  %ve  have  done,  but  according 
to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour;  that  being  justified  by  his 
grace,  we  should  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of 
eternal  life.  This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  these  things  I 
will  that  thou  affirm  constantly:" — whether  these  summaries 
are  connected  with  the  sacrament  of  baptism  or  not,  they 
all  aided  to  put  the  substance  of  Christian  fact  and  doctrine 
into  fixed  form,  and  perhaps  influenced  the  formulation  of 
Christian  truth  for  Catechetical  purposes. 

One  of  these  fixed  confessional  forms  may  be  referred  to 
by  Paul  when  he  bids  Timothy  to  "hold  fast  the  form  of 
sound  words,  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  in  faith  and  love 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus"  (2  Tim.  1:  13).  A  fixed  form  of 
dogma,  whether  Confessional  or  not,  is  evidently  alluded  to 
in  Rom.  6 :  17,  "Ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of 
doctrine  which  was  delivered  you ;"  and  in  Heb.  6 :  1,  2, 
there  is  the  implication  of  a  certain  round  or  system  of  doc- 


100         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

trines  well-known  and  confessed :  "Therefore  leaving  the 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfec- 
tion; not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from 
dead  works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tisms, and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment." 

We  have  thus  seen  that,  in  connection  with  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  the  Apostles  insisted  on  the  confession  of  Jesus 
as  the  outer  token  of  faith.  This  Confession  contained  an 
avowal  of  Jesus  as  Lord  (Rom.  10:  9;  1  Cor.  12:  3),  and, 
as  we  have  noted,  probably  contained  a  confession  of  the  res- 
urrection. Almost  all  the  elements,  yes,  the  very  clauses  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  are  to  be  found,  in  the  above  quoted  pas- 
sages, already  under  consideration.  They  were  combined  on 
the  basis  of  the  baptismal  formula,  ''The  Father,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit;''  but  were  confessed,  first  of  all,  as  the  truth 
that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  since  the  approacli  to  the  unconverted 
comes  through  Christ,  and  then  naturally  develops  (as  we  see 
in  1  Cor.  12:  -4-0;  2  Cor.  13:  14;  Eph.  2:8;  Jude  20,  21; 
John  14 :  16)  into  the  faith  and  Confession  of  the  Father  and 
the  Spirit. 

It  is  possible  that  the  contents  of  the  Church  Confessions, 
insisted  on  at  Baptism,  varied  with  the  circumstances  and 
experience  of  the  convert,  and  only  gradually  came  to  include 
certain  constant  elements.  Thougli  always  connected  with 
Christ,  the  Confession  apparently  was  not  always  a  definite 
formulation.  In  Ileb.  4 :  14,  for  instance,  the  Confession  to 
be  made  by  the  Christian,  and  held  fast  to,  is  evidently  the 
substance  of  doctrine  and  not  its  form :  "Seeing  then  that  we 
have  a  great  High  Priest,  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens, 
Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  vs  hold  fast  our  profession." 

It  was  the  almost  immediate  appearance  of  false  teaching 
that  undoubtedly  caused  the  elements  of  the  truth  in  Christ 
Jesus  to  be  drawn  together  into  a  fixed  Confessional  Form. 
In  the  Epistles  to  John,  for  instance,  the  fuller  Confession  of 
the  Church  as  to  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  true  Sonship 


ORIGIX    OF    CONFESSIOXALISM.  101 

in  Jesiis,  sets  itself  in  antithesis  to  the  errors  of  gnosticism ; 
and  in  Paul's  teaching  in  such  churches  as  Ephesus,  the  Con- 
fession had  doubtless  rapidly  crystallized  into  a  '•form  of 
sound  words." 

We  thus  come  to  the  ])oint  where  early  formulated  Con- 
fessions of  the  Church  arose  out  of  that  confession  of  per- 
sonal faitli  which  Avas  required  of  the  candidate  for  Baptism, 
especially  during  the  struggles  of  the  Church  with  diverse 
forms  of  heresy. 

Seeherg  helieves  that  tlie  original  oral  traditions  in- 
cluded a  Fornnda  of  Belief,  of  which  1  Cor.  15:  3ff  is  a  pre- 
served fragment,  and  that  this  Formula  had  a  Confessional 
character  and  was  used  at  the  administration  of  Baptism. 
He  concdudes  that  there  was  therefore  a  formulated  basis  of 
instruction,  that  is,  a  Ba])tisnud  (Vmfession  for  those  who 
desired  to  receive  the  sacrament  (Rom.  6:  3ff;  cf.  4:  14; 
Eph.  4:  5ff;  1  Pet.  3:  21ff;  1  Tim.  6:  20;  1  John  2:  20). 
From  1  Cor.  15 :  3,  he  concludes  that  this  Formula  was 
already  known  and  used  at  the  time  of  the  baptism  of  Paul ; 
and  from  the  many  trinitarian  passages  in  Scripture,  some  of 
which  have  already  been  quoted,  he  believes  that  the  Formula 
of  Confession  w^as  arranged  in  a  triad,  and  thus  became  the  ba- 
sis from  which  at  a  later  day  our  Apostles'  Creed  was  derived.* 

While  baptism  originaih^  was  administered  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  the  instruction  aud  Confession  recognized  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit;  for  the  baptized  person  looked  for- 
ward at  once  to  the  reception  of  the  Spirit.  And,  so,  the 
more  elementary  and  primitive  form  of  Christ  gave  way, 
finally,  to  the  triune  and  more  complete  form  of  Matthew. 

We  have  thus,  in  the  period  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  a 
Church  Confession  in  use  as  the  Baptismal  Formula."  Ire- 
naeus   and   Tertullian   maintained   that   the   "Canon  of   the 


°  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  tr.  by  Hay,  I,  p.   37. 

'  Didache   7:    1;   Justin.  Apol.,  183;   and  TertuUian,   de  Praeser.,  9,   13,   37, 
44,   goes   so   far   as   to   credit   it   to    Christ   Himself. 


102         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Truth"  was  identical  with  the  Baptismal  Formula,  and  every- 
where employed  in  the  Church  since  the  time  of  the  Apostles.' 

All  scholars  agree  that  this  "Canon  of  the  Truth"  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  includes  the  baptismal  Confession.* 

''And  lie  who  thus  holds  inflexible  for  himself  the  'Canon 
of  Truth/  which  he  received  by  his  baptism" — here  follows 
a  short  summary  of  the  creed,  which  must  accordingly  be  the 
content  of  the  baptismal  confession.*  This  short  statement 
of  the  great  realities  of  the  Christian  faith,  which  Irenseus 
(i,  9:  iv)  calls  "the  brief  embodiment  (somation)  of  truth," 
is  the  first  received  confession  of  the  Church.  Seebers:  feels 
that  the  historic  significance  of  this  brief  summary  of 
saving  truth  was  very  great:  "it  preserved  intact  the  con- 
sciousness that  salvation  is  dependent  upon  the  deeds  of 
Christ.  It  taught  the  Church  to  construct  Christian  doctrine 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  deeds  of  God;  and  finally  taught  men 
to  view  the  deeds  of  God  under  the  three-fold  conception  of 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit."  '" 

Irena?us  and  Tertullian  declare  that  the  Rule  of  Faith 
was  handed  doA\Ti  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  Ignatius 
and  Justin  bear  testimony  to  Formulas  of  Confession  in  the 
middle  of  the  Second  Century." 

The  Eoman  form  may  be  traced  to  the  middle  of  the 
Third  Century  (cf.  Xovatian  dc  Trinitate),  and  tlie  most 
ancient  text  of  the  Roman  Creed  that  has  been  found  dates 
from  the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century  (]\rarcellus  in  Epiph. 
hacr.  52  al.  72,  A.  1).  3:^7  or  338). 


'  Iren.  adv.  hacr.  i.  10.  1,  2;  iii.  4.  1,  2.  Tertul.  de  praescr.  Jiaeret.  37,  44, 
42.  14,  26,  36:  de  viry.    I. 

*  Kunze.  in  his  Ghiubcnxrcf/cl,  Hcilir/r  Schrift  nud  Tnufbekenntniss.  holds  that 
the  "Canon  of  tlie  Trutli"  includes  the  Holy  Scripture  also,  and  not  solely  the 
baptismal   confession. 

»  Iren.  i.  9.  4,  cf.  10.  1.  Tert.  dr  spcctac.  4  ;  de  coron.  3  ;  de  bapt.  11  ; 
praescr.  14.  See  also  Justin  Apol.  i.  61  cxtr.  Clem.  AL  Strom,  viii.  15,  p. 
887.  Potter,  vi.  18.  p.  826.  Paed.  i.  6,  p.  116.  Cf.  Caspari  :  Hat  die  Alex. 
Kirche  zur  Zcit  des  Clem,  ein  Taufbek.  be.'ie.i.^oi  oder  nicht,  in  Ztschr.  f.  k. 
Wiss.,  1886,  p.   352ff.     Also  esp.  Cyprian  Ep.  69.  1  :   70.  2  ;   75.   10  fin. 

'M.   86. 

"  Ign.  Mat/n.  11.  Eph.  7.  Trail  9.  Smyrn.  1.  Just.  Apol.  1.  13,  31,  46. 
Dial.   85. 


ORIGIN    OF    CONFESSIONALISM.  103 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  regarded 
this  Churcli  Confession  as  thoroughly  oecumenical,  and  that 
its  origin  was  located  by  them  in  the  Apostolic  age,  Harnack, 
as  is  well  known,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  this  Confes- 
sional Formula  appeared  at  Rome  about  A.  D.,  150,  and 
spread  from  thence  through  all  the  churches  of  the  West ; 
and  that  this  baptismal  Confession,  with  the  Canon  of  the 
Xew  Testament,  was  created  by  the  Roman  C^hurch  as  an 
infallible  rule  of  faith  in  order  to  crush  out  heresy;  and  that 
it  became  the  cause  of  leading  Christianity  away  from  the 
historical  Christ  into  historical  Catholicism. 

But  Kunze  "  has  shown  that  apostolic  origin  and  not  eccle- 
siastical sanction  gave  the  Creed  and  the  Canon  their  au- 
thority before  the  heretical  conflicts  arose.  From  the  Fa- 
thers, Kunze  concludes  that  the  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Old 
Catholic  Church  is  the  Confession  at  Baptism,  in  so  far  as 
it  was  used  against  heresy,  and  is  completed  and  illustrated 
from  Holy  Scripture,  Holy  Scripture  itself  being  always 
included. 

Kattcubuseh,"  in  the  most  exhaustive  treatise  on  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed  extant,  re-discusses  the  old  Roman  ''Apostolic" 
form  with  great  detail,  and  reviews  the  studies  of  Harnack 
and  Kunze.  He  argues  for  the  existence  of  the  Roman  form 
as  early  as  A.  D.,  100 ;  and  that  the  evidence  shows  it  to 
have  been  circulated  in  Gallia,  Africa  and  parts  of  Asia 
]\Iinor  in  the  Second  Century. 


"  Glauhensregel,  HeilU/e  Schrift  wid  TaitfbekeyinUiiss.  Untersuchungen 
Uber  die  dogmatische  Autoritat,  ihr  Werden,  und  ihre  Geschichte,  vornehmlich 
in  der  alten  Kirche. 

"  Das  Apostolische  Syt)ibol,  seine  Entstehung,  sein  geschichtlicher  Sinn, 
seine  ursprungliche  Stellung  in  Kultus  und  in  der  Theologie  der  Kirche. 
Ein    Beitrag  zur  Symbolik  und  Dogmengeschichte. 


CHAPTER   X. 

THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    COXFESSIOXAL 
PEIXCIPLE  IX  THE  CHUKCH. 

The  Apostles'  Creed — The  Nicene  Creed — The  Athanasian  Creed — The  Mediaeval 
Interval — The  Ninety-Five  Theses — The  JSIarburg  and  Schwabach  Articles — 
The  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  Confessional  Development — The  Confessional 
Connection  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

WE  now  have  traced  the  rise  of  the  Confessional  Prin- 
ciple, the  answer  of  the  sonl  and  the  Church  to  the 
Word,  as  it  sprang  from  the  lips  of  Christ  and  the  first  dis- 
ciples, as  it  accompanied  the  use  of  the  Sacraments  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  as  it  developed  into  the  Apostles' 
Creed  in  the  days  of  the  Church  Fathers, 

In  the  Apostles'  Creed  we  possess  the  first  rich  and  full 
jewel  of  confessional  ism,  viz.,  a  personal  declaration  of  the 
baptized  member's  faith  in  the  one  true  and  living  God,  Who 
made  us,  redeemed  us,  and  sanctified  us  in  His  Church.  This 
Apostolic  Confession  grew  naturally  out  of  the  baptismal 
formula ;  and  it  summed  up  in  three  short  articles  of  faith 
the  facts  of  the  Christian  religion,  in  llie  order  of  God's  own 
revelation,  l)eginning  with  God  and  creation,  continuing 
on  a  larger  and  central  scale  through  the  person  and  work 
of  Christ,  and  concluding  with  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  Church,  culminating  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
and  the  life  everlasting. 

This  Apostles'  Creed  is  the  very  spinal  column  of  our 
faith,  in  fact  and  doctrine,  and  rightly  takes  its  place  in  our 
order  of  service  as  the  fit  liturgical  medium  for  the  regular, 

104 


DEVELOP}fEXT   OF   CON FE SS ION ALISM.    105 

ordinary  and  united  confession,  or  testimony,  of  faith  of 
the  worshiping  congregation. 

As  the  Apostles'  Creed  arose  in  its  Roman  form  in  the 
churches  of  the  West,  so  the  ISTicene  Creed  arose  out  of  the 
baptismal  formula  used  as  a  confession  of  faith  at  the  bap- 
tismal service  in  the  churches  of  the  East.  Just  as  the 
Apostles'  Creed  bears  the  nuirks  of  the  simple,  ])ractical  and 
stable  Roman  tcni})erament;  so  the  Xicene  Creed  Ijears  the 
more  metaphysical,  dogmatic  and  polemic  form  of  the  thought 
of  the  East. 

Like  the  Apostles'  Creed,  it  was  a  growth  of  time,  and 
Avas  the  result  of  many  changes,  not  in  doctrine  or  sub- 
stance, but  in  form  and  statement. 

It  was  the  first  creed  to  obtain  universal  authority,  having 
gradually  arisen  in  the  East,  in  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Centu- 
ries ;  and  having  been  adopted  in  the  West,  with  the  addition 
of  ''filioque"  in  Spain,  at  the  end  of  the  Sixth  Century;  in 
England  and  France  in  the  Eighth  Century,  and  in  Italy  and 
elsewhere  in  the  Xinth  Century. 

This  gradual  growth  of  the  oecumenical  Xicene  Con- 
fession, extending  through  centuries,  and  the  lack  of  oecu- 
menical character  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  has  an  instructive 
parallel  on  a  smaller  scale  in  the  gradual  growth  of  the 
Lutheran  Confession  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  and  in  the 
lack  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  to  gain  an  entirely  univer- 
sal assent  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  As  the  validity  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed  and  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  are  both 
rooted  in  Scri])ture,  and  not  in  the  universal  assent  of  the 
Church  (in  which  at  least  two  out  of  the  so-called  three* 
opcTunenical  Creeds  would  fail  in  the  test  to-day,  and  all  of 
them  would  have  failed  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the  Church),  we 
need  feel  no  concern  as  to  the  real  confessional  value  of 
either  of  them. 


'  Even  the   Nicene   Creed   is   used    very   little   in   the    Reformed    Churches   of 
Protestantism.      Calvin  depreciated  It. 


106         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Xicene  Creed/  the  only  universal  Creed,  has  come 
down  to  us  out  of  a  warfare  and  struggle,  compared  with 
which  that  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  was  small  indeed;  and 
one  small  word  in  it,  which,  however,  in  our  form  of  Chris- 
tianity, ultimately  triumphed,  was  the  source  of  more  confes- 
sional strife  than  has  ever  arisen  from  the  attempts  to  up- 
hold the  Augustana  Invariata  as  over  against  the  changes  of 
substance  introduced  by  Melanchthon.  So  influential  was 
this  one  word  fiUoque  that  it,  as  Schaff  puts  it,  *'next  to  the 
authority  of  the  Pope,  is  the  chief  source  of  the  greatest 
schism  in  Christendom." 

After  all,  then,  history  teaches  that  a  siuglo  phrase  can 
stand  for  a  great  deal  in  a  confessional  movement,  and  must 
be  respected  for  the  background  it  brings  with  it.  As 
hasi  been  pointed  out  by  historians,  the  controversies  con- 
cerning the  double  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  rooted 
in  a  more  general  and  deeper  underlying  cause,  i.  c,  in  a 
difference  of  spirit  of  which  this  one  point  happened  to  be 
a  single  illustration. 

The  glorious  waves  of  Confession  in  the  Xicene  Creed 
enlarge  on  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  their  more  explicit  dec- 
larations of  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"The  terms  'co-essential'  or  'co-equal,'  'begotten  before  all 
worlds,'  'very  God  of  very  God,'  'begotten,  not  made,'  are 
so  many  trophies  of  orthodoxy,"  says  Schaff,  "in  its  mighty 
struggle  with  the  Arian  heresy  which  agitated  the  Church 
for  more  than  half  a  century."     They  remind  us,  in  their 


'TuHorh,  with  the  prejudice  of  his  position,  goes  so  far  as  to  say:  "The 
two  others  associated  with  it  in  the  services  of  the  Western  Church  have 
not  only  never  had  acceptance  beyond  the  range  of  that  church,  but  are 
very  gradual  fjrorcths  within  it.  without  any  definite  parentage  or  deliberate 
and  consultative  authority.  They  emerge  gradually  during  many  centuries 
from  the  confusions  and  variations  of  Christian  opinion,  slowly  cry.stallizing 
into  definite  shape  :  and  such  authority  as  belongs  to  them  is  neither  primitive 
nor  patristic.  It  is  the  reflected  assent  of  the  later  church  in  the  West,  and 
the  uncritical  patronage  of  a  comparatively  ignorant  age,  which  have  alone 
elevated  them  to  the  same  position  as  the  faith  defined  at  Nicspa,  which  is 
the  only  truly  Catholic  or  universal  symbol  of  the  universal  church."  The 
tone  (if  these  liritish  words  condemnatory  of  tbo  Apo.^tles'  Creed  as  a  Con- 
fession, rings  with  almost  identical  quality  among  us  in  the  condemnation  of 
the  Formula  of   Concord   as   a   real    Confession. 


DEVELOPMEXT   OF   CO X FE S SI 0 N ALI SM.    107 

fulness  and  their  repeated  recurrence,  of  the  incoming  tide 
of  the  sea,  which  joyfully  and  steadily  rises  over  every  rock 
of  opposition  in  its  pathway. 

The  Athanasian  Creed  is  a  further  advance  of  one  step  in 
doctrinal  development  over  the  Apostles'  and  the  Xicene 
Creeds.  It  formulates  the  absolute  unity  of  the  divine 
being  or  essence,  and  the  trinity  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Its  strength  depends  on  its  meaning  of  the 
term  persona,  by  wliich  it  avoids  Sabellianism  on  the  one 
hand  and  1'ri-theism  on  the  other.  ''If  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  can  be  logically  defined,  it  is  done  here",  says 
Schaff ;  and  we  might  add,  there  is  nothing  more  metaphysi- 
cal in  basis  and  method  in  the  whole  Formula  of  Concord 
than  what  we  find  on  this  point  in  this  oecumenical  Creed. 
Its  second  part  declares  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
in  opposition  to  the  Apollinarian,  the  Xestorian  and  the 
Eutychian  heresies. 

Of  this  symbol  Luther  says,  "Es  ist  also  gefasset,  dass  ich 
nicht  Aveiss,  ob  seit  der  Apostel  Zeit  in  der  Kirche  des  Xeuen 
Testamentes  etwas  Wichtigeres  und  Herrlicheres  geschrieben 
sci.''  ^  Of  it  Schaff  says,  It  '*is  a  remarkably  clear  and 
precise  summary  of  tlie  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  first 
four  oecumenical  Councils  (from  A.  D.  325  to  A.  D.  451), 
and  of  the  Augustinian  speculations  on  the  Trinity  and  the 
Incarnation.  Its  brief  sentences  are  artistically  arranged 
and  rhythmically  expressed.  It  is  a  musical  creed  or  dog- 
matic psalm.  Dean  Stanley  calls  it  *a  triumphant  pa^an' 
of  the  orthodox  faith.  It  resembles,  in  this  respect,  the  older 
Te  Deum;  but  it  is  much  more  metaphysical  and  abstruse, 
and  its  harmony  is  disturbed  by  a  threefold  anathema." 

This  oecumenical  symbol  with  its  threefold  anathema  and 
the  declaration  that  its  faith  in  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarna- 
tion is  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation,  and  that  all 
who  reject  it  will  be  lost  forever,  stronger  than  the  condem- 


»  ^yalcll.  VI,   2315. 


108         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

natorj  clauses  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  is,  nevertheless,  adopted  by  the  Lutheran  and 
the  Reformed  and  other  Protestant  Churches,*  though  it  has 
never  become  an  official  symbol  in  the  Greek  Chuich  and  is 
there  used  only  for  private  devotion. 

The  strangest  peculiarity  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  is  that 
it  is  a  pseudonym;  and  that,  if  its  validity  depended  upon  its 
authorship  and  the  circumstances  connected  with  its  adoption 
into  the  Church,  it  could  not  remain  a  symbol  of  the  Church. 
It  does  not  date  back  earlier,  in  fact,  than  toward  the  close  of 
the  Eighth  or  the  beginning  of  the  Ninth  Century. 

Those  who  are  inclined  to  find  fault  with  the  controversies, 
the  situation  and  the  authors — in  short,  the  historical  source 
wdicnce  originated  the  Lutheran  Confessions ;  and  to  there- 
from attempt  to  invalidate  one  or  the  other  of  them,  might 
profitably  consider  this  earlier  course  of  confessional  devel- 
opment in  the  Christian  Church  in  its  instructive  parallels. 

The  Lutheran  and  the  Anglican  Churches  have  recognized 
and  embodied  these  three  Creeds  in  their  doctrinal  and  litur- 
gical standards.  Luther  clearly  connected  Protestantism 
with  them,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  calls  them  'catholica 
et  generalia  summse  auctoritatis  symbola.' 

With  the  Athanasian  Creed,  the  development  of  the  Con- 
fessional Principle,  which  had  been  at  work  for  eight  hun- 
dred years,  came  to  a  stop  for  an  almost  equally  long  period. 
And  no  M'onder!  Confessions  are  the  answer  of  the  soul  and 
the  Church  to  Scripture.  But  the  Scripture  had  disappeared 
as  the  rule  of  Faith,  and  the  Church  itself  took  the  soul  in 
charge,  apart  from  the  Scripture,  and  did  its  thinking,  fur- 
nishing it  with  its  doctrine  ready-made  and  complete,  and 
allowing    only    the    scholastic    comment    of    the    schoolmen 


*  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  eliminated  both 
the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  Creeds,  together  with  the  clause,  "  He  de- 
scended into  hell,"  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  from  their  prayerbook,  in  1785 ; 
but  it  was  compelled  to  restore  everything  but  the  Athanasian  Creed  before 
the  Church  of  England  would  grant  it  the  right  of  ordination. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF    C 0 N F E SSI 0 N ALI SM.     109 

thereon.  lu  these  ages,  the  soul  of  the  Confessor  did  not 
answer  to  the  Word,  for  the  face  of  the  Word  was  hid. 

"  There  are  no  further  symbols,  though  theology  was 
greatly  cultivated.  Scholasticism  is  nothing  else  than  the 
vast  expression  of  the  intellectual  labor  bestowed  on  these 
subjects  during  these  ages.  But  it  worked  on  the  basis  of 
the  doctrinal  data  already  adopted  and  authorized  by  the 
Church.  Developing  these  data  in  endless  sentences  and 
commentaries,"  °  heresy  was  extirpated  by  force,  and  there 
was  no  room  for  tli(>  witness  and  testimony  of  the  individual 
conscience.  The  individual  no  longer  apprehended  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus  in  a  vital  manner,  but  accepted  it 
mechanically. 

As  confessional  needs  arose,  such  as  they  were,  it  was  not 
additional  Confession  of  the  Scri])tures,  but  edicts  of  the 
Pope,  that  became  both  authority  and  testimony  for  Christi- 
anity: not  truth  reflected  from  Christ  in  the  Word  of  God, 
but  rules  formulated  by  the  head  of  the  Church,  which  were 
to  be  received  without  question. 

With  the  awakening  in  the  Reformation  it  was  inevi- 
table that  the  Confessional  principle  should  rise  even  more 
quickly  than  it  had  subsided.  A  purified  Church  would  find 
the  neglected  and  inactive  fountains  of  testimony  to  faith 
and  teaching,  gushing  forth  anew  their  clear  and  salutary 
waters  to  quench  the  universal  thirst  of  mankind.  The 
foundation,  laid  in  the  old  symbols,  long  covered  with  dust, 
was  swept  clean  once  more,  and  the  confessional  building 
was  carried  upward  toward  completion,  each  new  stone  laid 
in  it  ''bearing  the  impress  of  the  time  and  the  historical  rela- 
tions out  of  which  it  grew."  * 

We  present  a  sumnuirv  of  this  period  of  re-awakening  in 
the  words  of  Principal  Tulloch,  of  the  University  of  St. 
Andrews:  "A  new  era  of  creed-formations  or  confessions  of 
faith  set  in.     The  process  of  exposition,  out  of  which  the 

•  MueHer,  Einleitung. 
»  lb.,  p.  23. 
11 


no         THE   LI  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

'Atbanasian '  symbol  gradually  rose,  became  once  more 
Tirgent,  not  only  in  tlie  disrnpted  brancbes  of  tbe  Cbnrch 
but  also  in  tbe  Roman  Cburcb  from  whicb  tbe  Confessions 
were  broken  off.  Tbe  Confessions  of  tbe  Lntberan  Cbnrcb 
claim  tbe  first  attention  in  cbronological  order.  Tbe  first  of 
tbese  is  tbe  Confessio  Angustana.  Secondly,  immediately 
following  was  numbered  tbe  Apologia,  nearly  five  times 
larger  tban  tbe  Confession  itself.  To  tbese  two  primary 
documents  were  afterAvards  added,  tbirdly,  tbe  Articles  of 
Scbmalkald,  signed  at  Scbmalkald  by  an  assembly  of  Evan- 
gelical tbeologians ;  and  fourtldy,  tbe  Formula  Concordiae 
composed  in  1576,  after  considerable  doctrinal  divisions  bad 
broken  out  in  Lutberanism. 

'^Tbis  latter  document  was  not  so  universally  accepted  as 
tbe  otliers  by  tbe  Lutberan  Cburcbes,  hut  it  has  always  hern 
reckoned  along  with  them  as  of  confessional  authority.  To 
tbese  remain  to  be  added  Lutber's  two  Catecbisms,  wbicb 
bave  also  a  Confessional  position  among  the  Lutherans.  Tbe 
collective  documents  are  issued  as  a  Concordia  or  Liber  Con- 
cordifP,  printed  with  the  three  older  creeds,  and  together  they 
sum  up  the  confessional  theology  of  Lutberanism." 

The  very  first  act  of  the  Reformation,  the  nailing  up  of 
the  Ninety-Five  Theses,  was  a  confessional  one.  And  tbese 
Theses  of  1517  already  contained  tbe  germs  of  the  Confes- 
sion at  Augsburg  in  1530.  Tbe  doctrines  of  original  sin, 
baptism,  the  merits  of  Christ,  good  works,  repentance,  faith, 
forgiveness,  absolution  and  tbe  power  of  the  Church,  all  of 
them  important  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  are  central  here. 

In  1518,  Luther  took  the  first  step  toward  a  common  form 
of  doctrine  for  teaching  tbe  people,  and  in  1520,  he  published 
his  "Short  Form  of  tbe  Ten  Commandments,  tbe  Creed  and 
the  Lord's  Prayer."  ^Meantime,  in  1518,  Melancbthon  bad 
reached  Wittenberg  and  become  his  co-laborer.  "  So  con- 
stant and  unreserved  was  tbe  intimacy  between  them,"  says 
Jacobs,'  beautifully,  "that,  from  this  time  on,  it  becomes  ira- 


''  Life  of  Luther,  p.    106. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   C 0 N F E S S 10 N ALI SM.     Ill 

possible  to  absolut(>ly  separate  their  labors,  since  in  the  prep- 
aration of  most  books  and  papers,  and  in  their  decisions  on 
all  important  questions,  they  acted  with  mutual  consultation 
and  revision  of  each  other's  work.  It  was  the  work  of  Luther 
to  draw  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  under  the  pressure  of 
severe  conflict,  the  testimony  which  the  particular  emergency 
required.  These  testimonies  came  forth  like  sparks  from  the 
anvil  without  regard  to  any  rigid  system.  Melanehthon 
gathered  them  together,  reduced  them  to  scientific  statement 
and  methodical  order,  enriched  tlicm  by  his  more  varied  read- 
ing, and  carried  to  completion  much  that  Luther  had  only 
suggested." 

Luther  went  to  meet  the  pa]>al  legate  at  Augsburg  and  dis- 
puted with  Eck  at  Leipzig  in  l.^ill),  burned  the  papal  Bull  in 
1520,  confessed  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1521;  translated 
the  Xew  Testament  in  1522-3 ;  published  the  "Deutsches 
Taufbiichlein  "  in  152'];  the  first  hymn  book  in  1524;  the 
"  Deutsche  Messe  und  Ordnung  des  Gottesdienstes "  in 
1526;  wrote  his  "Large  Catechism"  in  1528;  and  his 
"Small  Catechism"  in  1529,  the  year  of  the  Diet  of  Spires.' 

Thus  we  come  to  the  earliest  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions, 


•  We  find  the  following  historical  summary  in  Johnson's  Cyclop<dia,  V,  on 
"The  Luthcrun  Church,"  signed  by  Jacobs:  "Luther's  internal  conflicts,  his 
theses,  the  meetings  with  Cajetan,  Miltitz,  the  Leipzig  disputation,  the 
attraction  of  Melanchthon  into  his  mighty  orbit,  his  era  of  storm  and  pressure 
(1520-21),  the  bull,  the  efforts  of  Charles  V.  at  repression,  the  Diet  of 
Worms,  the  hiding  at  the  Wartburg,  the  outbreak  of  radicalism  at  Witten- 
berg under  Karlstadt  (1522-25),  the  Peasant  war  and  Anabaptist  sedition 
(1529),  the  controversies  with  Henry  VIIL  and  Erasmus  (1523-26) — all 
had  within  them  potencies  for  the  future  of  the  Church,  on  which  Luther's 
name,  in  the  face  of  his  protest,  was  to  be  fixed.  The  Lutheran  Reformation 
showed  its  unfolding  strength  in  the  empire  at  the  Diet  of  Nuremberg 
(1522-23)  :  in  the  extension  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  (1522-24)  at  the 
second  Diet  of  Nuremberg  (Jan.  14,  1524)  ;  at  the  convention  of  Ratisbon 
(1524),  called  to  resist  it;  in  the  growing  decision  of  the  evangelical  states 
(1524)  ;  in  the  Torgau  confederacy  (1526).  With  the  year  1526  the  estates 
began  to  use  the  right,  successfully  claimed  at  the  Diet  of  Spires,  to  regulate 
ecclesiastical  matters  in  their  own  territories.  In  the  years  following 
(1526-29)  a  number  of  the  Lutheran  state  churches  began  to  be  established 
and  organized.  Electoral  Saxony,  by  Luther's  advice,  began  with  a  thorough 
■visitation  of  the  churches.  The  church  constitution  and  Luther's  two 
catechisms  (1529),  which  grew  out  of  this  visitation,  became  guides  in 
the  organization  and  training  of  other  state  churches.  The  first  martyrs 
were  two  young  Augustinian  monks  of  Antwerp  (1523),  whose  memory  is 
kept  green  by  Luther's  hymn."' 


11-3         THE    LU  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  Large  and  the  Small  Catechisms  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther, 
published  in  1529,  for  the  use,  respectively,  of  all  faithful 
and  godly  pastors  and  teachers,  in  instructing  their  congrega- 
tions. In  his  preface  to  the  Small  Catechism  Luther  calls 
the  little  book  a  '^statement  of  the  Christian  doctrine,"  which 
he  has  prepared  in  "very  brief  and  simple  terms,"  and  which 
he  desired  to  have  introduced  among  the  young.  He  refers 
to  the  custom  of  the  Church  before  him  in  teaching  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  Creed  and  tJie  Ten  Commandments;  and 
shows  how  "our  office  has  now  assumed  a  very  different  char- 
acter from  that  which  it  bore  under  the  Pope;  it  is  now  of  a 
very  grave  nature  and  is  very  salutary  in  its  influence." 

This  earliest  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  a  won- 
derful exponent  of  true  Evangelical  doctrine.  It  sums  up  the 
whole  Christian  Faith  as  Law  and  Gospel  in  its  first  two 
parts,  the  Christian  life  un<lcr  the  influence  of  the  Word  and 
in  communion  with  the  Father  in  the  third  part,  and  the 
Sacraments  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  parts. 

We  believe  that  this  great  symbol  of  the  Church  may  be 
most  briefly  and  effectively  characterized  as  The  Confession 
of  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  and  as  the  fulness  of  the 
teaching  of  Article  VII  of  (he  Augsburg  Confession:  "The 
Church  is  the  congregation  of  saints  in  which  the  Gospel  is 
rightly  taught  and  the  Sacraments  rightly  administered." 

While  tliis  earliest  Confession  begins  with  Law,  it  is  the 
Law  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  central  ])osition  of  the  Confession, 
i.  e.,  the  second  article  of  tlie  Creed,  dominates  the  Avhole 
Catechism. 

This  little  pioneer  book  really  organizes  the  Lutheran  con- 
ception of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Christian 
life  under  the  influence  of  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments. 

In  it,  the  old  Apostles'  Creed,  in  the  explanation  to  the 
second  and  third  articles,  receives  a  wealth  and  fulness  of 
doctrinal  content,  such  as  is  contained  by  no  other  Confession 
of  the  Church  in  so  few  words.  The  whole  full  round  of 
Evangelical  Protestant  teaching  lies  therein  as  in  a  germ; 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    C 0 N F E S SI 0 N ALI SM.     113 

and  what  is  said  in  the  later  Confessions  of  the  Church  is  but 
building-  npon  this  foundation,  and  from  a  more  enlarged  and 
different  point  of  view. 

Lnther  gives  the  purpose  as  follows:  ''Thus  there  are  in 
all  five  parts  of  the  entire  doctrine  which  should  be  con- 
stantly practiced  and  heard  recited  word  for  word.  For 
you  must  not  depend  upon  that  which  the  young  people  may 
learn  and  retain  from  the  sermon  alone.  The  reason  that  we 
exercise  such  diligence  in  preaching  so  often  upon  the  Cate- 
chism is  in  order  that  its  truths  may  be  inculcated  on  our 
youth,  not  in  an  ambitious  and  acute  manner,  but  briefly  and 
with  the  greatest  simplicity,  so  as  to  enter  the  mind  readily 
and  be  fixed  in  the  memory.'' 

When  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  fourth  part,  he  says,  ''We 
have  now  finished  the  three  chief  parts  of  common  Christian 
doctrine.  Besides  these  we  have  as  yet  to  speak  of  our  two 
Sacraments  instituted  by  Christ,  of  which  also  every  Chris- 
tian should  have  at  least  some  short  elementary  instruction; 
because  without  them  there  can  be  no  salvation,  although 
hitherto  no  instruction  has  been  given.  But  in  the  first  place 
we  take  up  baptism,  by  which  we  are  first  received  into  the 
Christian  Church.  That  it  may  be  readily  understood,  we 
wull  carefully  treat  of  it,  keeping  only  to  that  which  it  is 
necessary  to  know.  For  how  it  is  to  be  maijitained  and 
defended  against  heretics  and  saints  we  will  commend  to  the 
learned." 

The  confessional  development  in  Luther's  mind  between 
the  Catechisms  and  the  Marburg  Articles  is  not  difiicult  to 
see.  The  Marburg  Articles  proceed  upon  the  basis  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  including  the  additions  of  the  Xicene  and 
the  Athanasian,  and  expand  upon  Luther's  explanation  of 
the  third  article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  giving  particular 
attention  to  Justification  and  the  Word,  and  then  proceed  to 
the  Sacraments. 

The  two  earliest  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church  were 
works  of  testimony  and  confession  intended  for  the  upbuiltl- 


114         THE   LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ing  of  the  Cluireh  witliin.  The  same  year,  on  October  3rd, 
1529,  came  the  fifteen  ]\rarbiirg  Articles,  drawn  np  by  Luther, 
and  which  were  intended  to  conserve  and  strengthen  the 
Evangelical  faith  as  it  looked  ontward.  The  Angsburg  Con- 
fession is  rooted  in  these  articles;  and  the  seventeen  articles 
of  Lnther  at  Schwabach,  October  inth,  1529,  elaborate  the 
]\[arburg  Articles.  These  two  sets  of  articles,  the  teaching 
of  Luther  (and  without  any  condemnatory  clauses),  icithin 
six  months  of  the  preparation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  nine  vwnths  of  its  delivery,  form  the  foundation  of  the 
doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

The  first  article  of  Marburg  and  the  first  of  Schwabach 
is  the  substance  of  the  first  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. The  fourth  article  of  Marburg,  and  of  Schwabach,  is  the 
substance  of  the  second  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
The  second  and  third  articles  of  both  Marburg  and  Schwa- 
bach are  the  substance  of  the  third  article  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  Article  Y  of  ^larburg  and  of  Schwabach  is  the 
substance  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Articles  VI,  VII  and  VIII  of  ]\rarburg  and  VI  and  VII  of 
Schwabach  are  the  basis  of  the  fiflli  article  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  Article  X  of  Marburg  is  the  basis  of  the  sixth 
article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article  XII  of  Schwa- 
bach is  the  basisi  of  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Articles  IX  of  Marburg  and  VIII  and  IX  of  Schwa- 
bach are  the  basis  of  the  ninth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Article  X  of  Schwabach  is  the  basis  of  the  tenth 
article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article  XI  of  ^[arburg 
and  of  Schwabach  is  the  basis  of  the  eleventh  article  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  Article  XV  of  Marburg  is  the  basis 
of  the  thirteenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article 
XVII  of  Schwabach  is  the  basis  of  the  fifteenth  article  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article  XII  of  ]\rarburg  is  the 
basis  of  the  sixteenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Articles  XIII  and  XIV  of  Schwabach  are  the  basis  of  the 
seventeenth    article   of   the   Augsburg   Confession.      Articles 


DEVELOPMENT   OF    CO N FE S SIO N ALT SM.     115 

XVIII  and  XIX,  the  two  philosophical  and  metaphysical 
articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  touching  subjects  such  as 
those  treated  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  have  no  basis  in  the 
Luther  articles  of  Marburg  and  Schwabach. 

If  the  foundation  of  the  first  seventeen  articles  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  are  to  be  found  in  the  ^larburg  and 
Schwabach  articles,  the  foundation  of  the  remaining  articles 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  from  twenty  to  twenty-eight  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Torgau  articles,  written,  it  is  supposed,  by 
Luther,  certainly  by  Melauchthou,  Touas  and  Bugenhagen. 
March  14-20th,  15.jO,  within  about  iliree  months  prior  to  the 
reading  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Article  XX  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  closely  follows  "B.  ,0f  Faith  and 
^Vorks"  of  Torgau.  Article  XXI  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, ''Worship  of  Saints,"  is  found  in  substance  in  the  same 
article  of  Torgau.  Article  XXII,  "Of  Both  Kinds  in  the 
Sacraments,"  is  found  essentially  in  the  article,  ''Of  Both 
Forms,"  in  Torgau.  Article  XXIII,  "Of  the  Marriage  of 
Priests,"  is  found  in  short  compass  under  the  same  article  in 
Torgau;  and  Article  XXIV,  "Of  the  Mass,"  and  Article 
XXV,  "Of  Confession,"  are  similarily  found  under  said  ar- 
ticle. Article  XXVI,  "Of  Traditions  of  Men,"  is  found 
under  the  head  of  "The  Doctrines  and  Ordinances  of  Men" 
in  Torgau.  Article  XXVII,  "Of  Monastic  Vows,"  is  found 
under  the  same  heading  in  Torgau.  Article  XXVIII,  ''Of 
the  Power  of  the  Bishops,"  is  found  under  the  heading  of 
"Ordination"  in  Torgau,  and  also  in  ''C.  Of  the  Power  of  the 
Keys." 

It  thus  will  be  seen  that  the  substantial  form  of  Lutheran 
doctrine,  both  in  its  connection  with  the  old  oecumenical  sym- 
bols, in  its  special  teachings  as  to  Justification  by  Faith  and 
not  by  works,  in  its  doctrine  of  the  Word,  the  Sacraments 
and  the  Church,  and  in  every  other  positive  point,  except  the 
doctrine  of  Free  Will,  as  well  as  in  every  other  negative 
point  as  contrasted  with  the  Roman  Church,  was  developed 
by  or  well  known  to  Luther,  after  passing  throug^h  his  Cate- 


116         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

chisms  in  1528-9,  in  the  articles  of  Marburg,  Schwabach  and 
Torgan  in  1529-30,  shortly  prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  by  Mehmclithon.  Though  Luther  had  never 
\s'ritten  a  line  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  nor  ever  even  seen 
a  sentence  of  it  until  after  it  was  delivered  to  the  emperor,  it 
was,  nevertheless,  in  substance,  liis  teaching  and  the  work  of 
liis  mind,  with  the  adjustments,  to  the  occasion,  made  bv 
Melanchthon,  under  the  direction  and  supervision  of  the 
Elector  and  his  chancellor. 


CHAPTER   XL 

THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PRINCIPLE  IN  THE  AUGS- 
BUEG  COXFESSIOX. 


The  Confessional  Authorship  of  the  Augsburg  Confession — The  Confessional  Con- 
tent of  the  Augsburg  Confession — 'l"he  Confessional  Progress  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession — The  (ieneral  Confessional  Characteristics  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion— The  Fate  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  Variata  and  its  Essence  as  In- 
variata — The  Wide  Difference  between  the  Theology  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  Pure  American  Protestantism. 


THE  question  as  to  the  credit  of  the  aiitliorsbip  of  the 
Aiitisl)iir<i'  Confession,  as  a  Confession,  is,  to  an  un- 
biased mind,  and  in  view  of  all  the  light  now  shed  upon  the 
situation,  an  idle  one.'  The  Augsburg  Confession  is  a  true 
confessional  writing,  in  which  the  Providence  of  God,  as  over 
against  the  will  and  hand  of  man,  was  the  determining  and 
decisive  factor. 

When  the  Elector  of  Saxony  learned  that  the  Emperor 
would  come  to  Germany  and  hold  a  diet  at  Augsburg,  and 
started  Avith  his  group  of  theologians  to  meet  him,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Evangelical  Churches  was  already  develoj^ed  and 
known.  Luther,  the  great  living  Witness,  was  as  near  at  hand 
as  God,  through  the  Emperor,  had  designed  and  allowed.  The 
clear  statements  of  doctrine  from  which  the  Confession  was 
to  be  drawn,  and  which  had  come  largely  from  Luther  him- 
self, with  much  consultation  as  to  the  same,  were  in  the  hand 


^  Weber,  Kollner,  Riickert,  Heppe  (Reformed),  and  Zockler  (as  to  spirit), 
emphasize  Melanchithon's  authorship.  Gieseler  is  influenced  by  his  rationalistic 
training  at  Halle  ;  and  he  was  a  member  of  the  Masonic  Fraternity. 

117 


118         TEE   LUTHER  Ay    CONFESSIONS. 

and  mind  of  ]\relanclitlion.  The  responsibility  and  the  bal- 
ance of  power  which  would  finally  determine  the  (piantity  of 
substance  and  the  quality  of  form,  lay  with  the  wise  and 
steadfast  elector  (a  layman)  and  his  sturdy  and  clear-sighted 
chancellor  (also  a  layman).  The  modifying  elements,  provi- 
dentially permitted  to  enter,  at  the  last  moment,  and  serv- 
ing, with  other  factors,  to  give  thai  golden  poise  on  all  sides 
to  the  firmness  of  the  Confession,  Avere  the  awakened  and 
friendly  Estates  that  joined  in  it.  The  inexorable  demands 
of  circumstance,  changing  from  day  to  day  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  situation  in  the  Emperor's  mind — demands 
that  threw  Master  Philip's  mind  out  of  its  original  channel 
and,  finally,  almost  frightened  him  out  of  his  wits — w^ere 
beyond  human  control ;  and  each  and  all  these  factors  were 
directly  contributory  to  the  substance,  and  to  the  formal  con- 
tent of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Then  came  Melanchthon, 
the  adaptable  and  gifted  servant  of  the  cause  and  of  the  Lord, 
in  himself  not  a  ])rophet,  but  a  moulder  of  the  prophetic 
voice,  who  cond)ined  a  multitude  of  indisj>ensable  elements, 
aud  gave  to  the  result  a  ripe  inner  compactness,  a  beautiful 
outer  dress,  and  an  abiding  form  of  strength.  To  quote  one 
of  th(^se  wlio  love  ^lelanclitlion  much,  Kahnis     says:- 

''Luthcr  war  der  Meister  des  Inhalts,  jMelanchthon  der 
Meister  der  Eorm.  .  .  .  Melanchthon  war  der  Mann,  welclier 
niit  Objektivitiit,  Feinheit,  Klarheit,  Milde  zu  schreiben  ver- 
stand.  Und  wie  nie  hat  er  diese  Gain'  in  diesem  Falle  ver- 
werthet."  And  Schaff  declares  that  while  the  spirit  and  the 
literary  composition  are  that  of  Melanchthon,  ^'as  to  the 
doctrines,  Luther  had  a  right  to  say,  'The  Catechism,  the 
Exposition  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  are  mine.'  "  * 

If  Melanchthon  had  been  ]>ermitted  to  have  his  own  way 
in  the  framing  and  ])resentation  of  the  Augsbui'g  Confession, 
and  to  exercise  his  own  judgment  as  to  material,  purpose 


'  Luth.  Dogvxatik,   II,   p.   424. 

'  Creeds  of  ChrisienUom,  I,  p.   229. 


rUE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  119 

and  stylo,  it  Avonld  have  been  an  instrument  different  in  sub- 
stance and  form  from  what  we  now  happily  find  it.  Owing 
to  Mclanchthon's  Avant  of  sta])ility,  when  diverse  shades  of 
doctrine  api)eak'd  to  his  judj^ment,  and  his  willingness  to 
compromise  with  what  appeared  to  be  the  most  promising 
hope  at  the  moment,  the  Augsburg  Confession  would  proba- 
bly have  been  a  dissimilar  and  diverse  presentation  each  time, 
at  any  one  of  several  critical  moments,  had  it  been  handed  in 
then,  between  the  beginning  of  May  and  the  end  of  June/ 

The  same  desire  for  union  with  those  without,  and  the 
willingness  to  adapt  and  change,  that  kept  Melanchthon  busy 
with  the  document,  after  it  had  ouee  become  the  public  prop- 
erty of  the  Lutheran  Chnrcli,  iuspii-cd  him  to  work  inces- 
santly at  it,  in  order  to  fit  it  to  the  kaleidoscopic  changes  of 
the  political  situation  prior  to  the  me<'tiug  of  the  diet.  He 
started,  first  of  all,  with  the  idea  of  healing  the  breach  with 
Rome. 

To  achieve  this  more  effectively,  it  had  been  determined  to 
abandon  all  the  doctrinal  articles;  and,  in  place  thereof,  to 
substitute  a  lengthy  Preface  in  which  the  elector  was  eulo- 
gized. The  changes  of  faith  and  custom  introduced  into  the 
Protestant  churches  by  the  reformers  were  to  be  minimized 
as  much  as  possible,  so  as  to  cause  them  to  look  comparatively 
unimportant,  and  to  convey  the  impression  that  the  Evan- 
gelical Church  was  still,  barring  certain  abuses,  in  complete 
harmony  with  Home. 

In  thus  modifying  the  language  to  conciliate  Rome,  which 
was  the  great  threatening  power  in  the  horizon  at  that  mo- 
ment, prior  to  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  Melanchthon  neces- 
sarily broke  Avith  the  more  radical  elements  of  Protestantism, 
including  the  Zwinglians ;  and  it  was  in  his  interest  to  sliow, 
at  this  time,  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  how  little  the  Evan- 
gelical Church,  which  he  represented,  had  in  common  with 


♦  In    other   words,    the    Yariata    would    have    been    begun    prior    rather    than 
subsequent  to  its  historical  delivery. 


130         THE   LUTHER  AX    COXFESSIONS. 

the  Refoniied  eliurclios,  and  thus  widen  the  breach  between 
them  as  much  as  possible. 

Hence,  had  Melanchthon  remained  in  control,  there  might 
never  have  been  an  Augsburg  Confession ;  for  the  document, 
if  handed  in  to  the  Diet,  would  have  been  constituted  of  a 
Preface  defending  the  Elector  and  declaring  how  near  the 
churches  in  the  electorate  of  Saxony  approached  the  practice 
of  Rome,  and  a  statement  of  the  abuses  that  the  Protestants 
had  justly  been  attempting  to  correct. 

It  Avas  the  attack  on  Lutheran  doctrine  as  such  by  the  Ro- 
manists, and  the  apparent  impression  of  this  attack  on  tlie 
Emperor  before  he  arrived  at  Augsburg,  and  the  wusdom  and 
insistence  of  the  Chancellor  Briick,"  that  put  a  complete 
quietus  on  ^relanchthon's  ])lau,  and  couipelled  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  twenty-one  doctrinal  articles  at  the  head  of  the 
Confession,  and  that  finally  cut  oflF  negotiations  with  Rome. 

It  was  only  at  a  late  day  that  Philij)])  of  Ilesse,  the  friend 
of  the  Reformed  Churches,  was  admitte*]  into  the  counsels 
of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  and  that  the  balance  of  the  Con- 
fession was  swung  back  to  its  true  golden  centre  between 
Rome  and  the  Reformed,  and  that  thus  the  real  objective 
treatment  of  Lutheran  doctrine  toward  both  its  antitheses, 
viz.,  Rome  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Reformed  on  the  other, 
was  really  assured. 

Had  it  been  possible  for  ^Melanchthon  to  procure  peace  at 
Augsburg  by  a  compromise  of  the  confessional  principle, 
we  Wieve  that  he  would,  in  accordance  with  the  natural  bent 


'  Conip.  even  Kahnis :  "  The  desire  for  an  understanding  -with  the  Papists 
made  Melanchthon  a  very  decided  opponent  of  the  Swiss,  and  even  of  the 
Strasburgers." — Liith.   Do(/iii.,   11,   p.    436. 

•How  far  it  is  possible  for  historians  to  get  away  from  history,  by  the 
use  of  a  fact  interpreted  wrongly,  is  to  be  seen  in  Schaff's  condemnation  of 
the  present  Preface  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  he  not  knowing  how  far 
Melanchthon  leaned  toward  Rome  and  against  Zwiugli   in   the  original   Prrfafp. 

Schaff  says :  "  The  diplomatic  Preface  to  the  Emperor  is  not  from  his 
(Melanchthon's)  pen,  but  from  that  of  the  Saxon  Chancellor  Briick.  It 
is  clumsy,  tortuous,  dragging,  extremely  obsequious,  and  has  no  other  merit 
than  to  introduce  the  reader  into  the  historical  situation." — Creeds  of  Chris- 
tendom, I,  p.  233.  If  Schaff  were  to  see  Melanchthon's  first  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  knew  how  Rriick's  hand  was  in  restraint  of  these  very  traits, 
would   he   apply   the   epithets   of   this   estimate   to    Melanchthon? 


Tllb:    AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  121 

of  his  mind,  have  embraced  that  situation  rather  than  have 
prepared,  as  lie  finally  was  eouipelled  and  directed  to  do,  the 
full  and  object i\'e  confessional  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Evangelical  churches.  Hut,  in  the  Providence  of  God, 
owing  to  the  concurrence  of  various  historical  elements,  and 
with  the  over-shadowing  power  of  sound  Confessional  Luther- 
anism  as  the  key  to  the  situation,  the  Confession  came  to  em- 
body the  teaching  of  \ho  Kviingelic  al  cliurches. 

When  we  come  to  note  the  profjirsfi  of  ihe  Confessional 
principle,  as  found  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  compari- 
son with  the  three  ceeumenical  symbols,  we  find,  first  of  all, 
in  Article  I  of  the  Confession,  a  building  on  the  old  symbols, 
especially  on  the  Xicene  Creed,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

We  find,  in  addition,  a  now  confessional  article,  not  in  the 
oecumenical  creeds,  in  the  second  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, namely,  the  one  devoted  to  Anthropology  and  the 
Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  which  is  the  negative  basis  of  re- 
demption. We  find  in  the  third  article  a  reiteration  of  the 
(Tcumenical  creeds  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  We  find  in 
the  fourth  the  new  but  old  and  ajjostolic  Doctrine  of  Justifi- 
cation by  faith,  in  line  with  l^uther's  exjdanation  of  the  third 
part  of  the  creed,  in  the  clause,  ''  I  l)elicve  in  the  forgiv<'7u>ss 
of  sins."  In  .Vrticle  V  we  find  the  new  doctrine  of  the 
Word  and  the  Sacraments.  In  Article  W  we  have  the  cor- 
ollary ui  Article  IV  on  Justification. 

In  Article  VII  we  find  the  abridged  doctrine  of  the  Church 
on  the  basis  of  ''I  believe  in  the  Holy  Christian  Church,  the 
communion  of  Saints."  In  the  eighth  article  we  find  a  de- 
lineation of  the  relation  of  the  communion  of  saints  and  the 
Word  and  Sacraments  to  the  world.  In  Articles  IX,  X  and 
XI  we  have  the  fourth  and  fifth  parts  of  Luther's  Catechism. 
In  Article  XII  we  have  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Xinety- 
Five  Theses,  together  with  a  condemnation  of  old  and  current 
errors.  In  Article  XIII  we  find  the  teaching  that  the  two 
Sacraments  of  the  Church  were  not  ordained  chiefly  to  be 
"marks  of  profession  among  men"  (on  which  rests  the  mod- 


122         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ern  theory  of  open  communion),  "but  rather  to  be  signs  and 
testimonies  of  the  will  of  God  toward  ns,  instituted  to  awaken 
and  confirm  faith  in  those  who  nse  thorn."  Articles  XIV 
and  XV  relate  to  the  internal  ministry  of  the  Church,  and 
are  intended  to  hold  the  Evangelical  truth  as  over  against 
both  Roman  and  extreme  Protestant  error.  Article  XVI,  on 
civil  affairs,  is  intended  to  hold  the  true  faith  as  against  ex- 
treme Protestant  error.  Article  XVII,  an  expansion  of  the 
final  article  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  is  also  against  extreme 
Protestant  error.  Articles  XVIII  and  XIX,  on  the  freedom 
of  the  will  and  on  the  cause  of  good  works,  revert  back  to 
Article  II  on  the  original  nature  of  man.  The  remainder 
of  the  Confession,  from  Article  XX  on,  is  a  defence  of  the 
Protestant  doctrine  as  it  has  worked  itself  out  into  practice. 

The  great  distinctive  features  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
as  going  beyond  the  (Ecumenical  creeds  and  the  Catechisms 
of  Luther,  in  the  order  of  historical  development,  are  its 
positive  presentation  of  the  doctriue  of  Luther's  Xinety-Five 
Theses,  the  material  principle  of  the  Peformation,  Justifica- 
tion by  faith ;  its  presentation  of  the  one  and  great  doctrine  of 
the  Word  and  Sacraments,  as  constituting  the  office  of  the 
Church ;  its  teaching  of  the  Church,  in  all  its  various  aspects, 
in  contrast  with  the  wrong  teaching  of  the  Pouian  Church; 
and,  particularly,  its  emphasis  on  the  Church  as  invisible, 
and  its  larger  teaching  on  the  Sacraments. 

It  is  in  these  points  that  it  marks  a  Confessional  advance 
over  the  Ou'umenical  Creeds,  and  sets  fast  forever  a  new  and 
larger  sum  of  confessional  truth.  But  several  things  were 
still  to  follow. 

In  the  Augsburg  Confession  the  Evangelical  Protestant  de- 
velopment had  not  yet  reached  a  confession  of  the  formal 
principle  of  the  Reformation,  nanif^ly,  that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  life;  nor  of  the  funda- 
mental Lutheran  truth  of  Law  and  Gospel ;  nor  any  full  ex- 
planation of  the  Person  of  Christ,  particularly  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  Lord's  Supper;  nor  any  confession  on  the  Scrip- 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  123 

tural  teaching  of  predestination  and  election.  These  leading 
doctrines  of  revelation  were  reserved,  in  the  Providence  of 
God,  to  be  wronglit  out  and  eventnally  were  confessed  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

But  let  us  now  consider  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  an 
entity  in  itself,  from  its  own  standpoint: — 

The  Confession  divides  itself  into  two  parts:  the  one, 
dealing  with  dogma ;  the  other,  with  ecclesiastical  customs 
and  institutions.  The  twenty-one  doctrinal  articles,  begin* 
ing  with  the  Trinity  and  ending  with  the  worship  of  saints, 
confess  the  truth  of  God  held  by  tlie  Evangelical  faith,  in 
common  with  Tiome,  in  connnon  with  Augustinian  theology 
(II,  XVIII,  XIX,  VITI),  in  opposition  to  the  semi-Pelag- 
ianism  of  Rome,  and  in  distinction  from  the  Zwinglians  and 
the  Anabaptists. 

Linking  itself  to  the  old  Catholic  symbols  in  the  doctrine 
of  God  and  Christ,  it,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church,  adds  to  the  Confessional  principle  the  true 
doctrine  of  man,  in  his  sinful  nature  (II)  and  enslaved  will 
(XIX)  ;  and  the  true  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  man,  jus- 
tification by  faith  (IV),  repentance  (XII),  new  obedience 
(VI),  good  works  (XIX),  daily  life  (XVI),  and  Christ  the 
only  mediator  (XX)  :  as  well  as  tlie  true  doctrine  of  the 
Word  and  the  ministry  (V),  ordination  (XI^^),  the  Church 
(VII,  VIII),  confession  and  absolution  (XI),  the  Sacra- 
ments (IX,  X  [real  bodily  presence  and  distribution  of 
Christ],  XIII),  and  ecclesiastical  rites  (XV). 

In  common  with  the  Church  Catholic,  the  Confession 
records  itself  as  in  opposition  to  Unitarians,  Arians,  Pelag- 
ians, Donatists,  Sacramentarians  and  Anabaptists  (who  are 
in  error  on  the  doctrines  of  infant  baptism,  the  church,  civil 
offices  and  the  millennium)  ;  and  opposes  the  following  abuses 
of  Rome:  withdrawal  of  cup  from  the  laity  (I),  celibacy  of 
the  clergy  (II),  sacrifice  of  the  mass  (III),  detailed  and  ob- 
ligatory auricular  confession  (IV),  obligatory  celebration  of 
ceremonies  and  feasts  and  fasts  (V),  monastic  vows  (VI), 


134         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  secular  power  of  the  bishop  where  it  interferes  with  the 
purity  of  the  holy  office   (VII). 

The  greatness  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  lay  not  only  in 
its  confessional  substance,  in  which  it  added  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  man,  salvation,  faith,  the  church  and  the  ministry 
of  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  to  the  old  oecumenical  creeds; 
but  also  in  its  historical  occasion,  and  in  its  general  tone. 

As  to  the  occasion,  it  was  presented,  at  the  command  of  the 
German  Emperor,'  by  Lutheran  princes  as  an  explicit  state- 
ment of  their  faith,  ostensibly  that  Catholics  and  Protestants 
might  be  imited  once  again  as  one  undivided  Christian 
Church,  in  a  war  against  the  common  enemy,  tlie  Turk,  but, 
in  reality,  as  an  apology  for  the  protesting  attitude  of  the 
evangelical  faith.  In  view  of  its  ostensible  purpose,  so  deeply 
cherished  by  ^lelanchthon,  it  treads  very  softly,  as  Luther 
says,"  aud  does  not  even  mention  the  Papacy  in  many  of  its 
worst  abuses ;  and  declares  itself  in  harmony,  not  only  with 
Scripture,  but  also  with  the  genuine  tradition  of  the  Poman 
Church.  The  historic  heresies  it  condemns  are  those  already 
punishable  according  to  the  laws  of  the  German  empire.  It 
would  come  back  to  Rome,  if  Pome  would  leave  its  faith  and 
praxis  undistui-bed.  Put  we  are  not  to  conclude,  from  this 
irenic  tone,  that  it  conceals  any  truth.  Its  attitude  is  gen- 
uine, churcldy,  devout,  Scri|)tural,  and  without  compromise. 

In  reviewing  the  general  cliaracier  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, we  find  in  it,  first,  a  wonderful  tone  of  objective 
universality  in  which  all  its  truths  abide — and  reach  stability 
and  rest.  Who  would  sup]>ose  that  tliese  confessors  were 
"protestants"  or  men  of  a  perturlicd  past  or  unsettled  fu- 
ture! The  strength  of  the  everlasting  hills  is  in  them,  and 
that  quiet  confidence  which  usually  comes  only  with  the  sta- 


'  The  A.  C.  bases  Its  right  to  exist  upon  the  Emperor's  Call,  on  which  It 
builds,  and  which  its  Preface  quotes  freely,  bringing  Charles  within  its 
authorship. 

■»  "Ich  hab  M.  Philipp^en  Apolo^i.im  liberlesen :  die  gefiillet  mir  fast 
wohl,  und  weiss  nichts  daran  zu  bessern  noch  iindern,  wiirde  sich  auch  nicht 
schlcken  ;    denn  ich  so  sanft  und  leise  nlcht  treten  kann." — Erl.  54.   145. 


TILE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  125 

bility  of  ages.  With  common  consent,  and  as  an  establislied 
and  universal  fact,  the  confessors  declare,  "  our  Churches  d<) 
teach."  They  speak  as  part  of  "the  one  holy  Church  that 
continues  forever."  They  calmly  exhibit  the  summary  of 
their  doctrine,  "so  that  it  might  be  understood  that  in  doc- 
trine and  ceremonies  nothing  has  been  received  on  our  part 
against  Scripture  or  the  Church  Catholic;"  and  in  every 
sentence  they  utter,  they  im])ress  u|)(»n  tlie  attentive  reader 
the  fact  that  they  are  true  representatives  of  an  abiding 
inner  harmony,  namely,  "the  chui'ches,"  "our  churches," 
against  which  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail. 

The  next  striking  feature  in  the  Confession  is  the  spirit 
of  Catholic  continuity,  in  which  the  Confession  ranges  itself" 
in  line  with  the  whole  develojuuent  of  historical  Christianity, 
and  with  the  Clu-islian  Cluireh,  as  the  abiding  institution 
amidst  all  changes,  as  is  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  internal 
evidence  contained  in  the  fcdlowing  statements :  "That  these 
matters  may  be  settled  and  brought  back  to  one  perfect  truth 
and  Christian  coni-ord — that  we  may  be  able  to  live  in  unity 
and  concord  in  the  one  Christian  Church — that  the  dissension 
may  be  done  away  and  brought  back  to  the  one  true  accord- 
ant religion;  for  as  we  all  serve  and  do  battle  under  one 
Christ,  we  ought  to  confess  the  one  Christ — to  the  true  unity 
of  the  Church,  it  is  enough  to  agree  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments — no 
one  should  publicly  teach  in  the  Church  unless  he  be  regu- 
larly called — in  our  doctrine  there  is  nothing  that  varies  from 
the  Scripture,  or  from  the  Church  Catholic,  or  from  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  known  from  its  writers — our  churches 
dissent  in  no  article  of  the  Faith  from  the  Church  Catholic — 
our  teachers  must  not  be  looked  upon  as  having  taken  up  this 
matter  rashly  or  from  hatred  of  the  bishops — very  many 
traditions  are  kept  on  our  part  which  conduce  to  good  order 
in  the  Church,  as  the  Order  of  Lessons  in  the  ]\Iass,  and  the 
chief  holy  days — liberty  in  human  rites  was  not  unknown 

to  our  Fathers — our  teachers,  for  the  comforting  of  men's  con- 
18 


12G         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

sciences,  were  constrained  to  show  the  difference  between  the 
power  of  the  Church  and  the  power  of  the  sword— since  the 
power  of  the  Chnreh  grants  eternal  things,  it  does  not  inter- 
fere with  civil  government — nothing  has  been  received  on 
onr  part  against  Scripture  or  the  Church  Catholic."  We 
find  in  this  flowing  current  of  testimony  a  consciousness  of 
connection  with  the  Church  of  all  ages ;  and  in  its  broadest 
and  deepest  life;  a  consciousness  that  is  very  rare  indeed  in 
any  declaration  of  ]irinciple,  and  which  is  truly  cecumenical. 

''The  Confession  exhibited  the  one  undivided  faith  of  the 
entire  Lutheran  (Miurch  in  the  Eui])ire.  It  was  not  the  work 
of  men  without  authority  to  represent  the  Church,  but  was 
the  voice  of  all  the  Churches.  Its  groundwork  was  laid  by 
Luther ;  materials  were  bi'ought  together  by  the  great  theo- 
logians of  the  whole  Lutheran  Church — by  Brentius,  Jonas, 
Spalatin  and  others — who  carefuly  examined  and  tested  each 
other's  work.  The  matchless  hand  of  Melanchthon  was  em- 
ployed in  giving  the  most  perfect  form,  the  most  absolutely 
finished  statement  of  the  faith ;  the  Confession  was  subjected 
to  the  careful  examination  of  Luther,  by  whom  it  was  heartily 
approved,  ^lelauchthon's  own  account  is:  'T  brought  to- 
gether the  heads  of  the  Confession,  embracing  almost  the 
sum  of  file  doctrine  of  our  Churchea.  I  took  nothing  on  my- 
self. In  the  presence  of  the  Princes  and  the  officials  every 
topic  was  discussed  by  our  preachers,  sentence  hi/  sentence.  A 
copy  of  tlie  entire  Confession  was  then  sent  to  Luther,  who 
wrote  to  the  Princes  that  he  had  read  and  that  he  approved 
the  Confession.'  * 

"The  very  name  of  ArosBruG,  which  tells  us  where  our 
Confession  was  uttered,  reminds  us  of  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
ligations of  those  who  profess  to  receive  it.  Two  other  Con- 
fessions were  brought  to  that  city :  the  Confession  of  Zwingle, 
aiul  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession — the  former  openly  opposed 
to  the  faith  of  our  Church,  especially  in  regard  to  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  the  latter,  ambiguous  and  evasive  on  some  of  the  vital 


See   Chapter  XV   for  Kolde's   reasoning   and   position  on   this   point. 


THE    AUGSBURG    COXFESSION.  127 

points  of  the  same  doctrine.  These  two  Confessions  are  now 
remembered  .  .  .  only  because  of  the  historical  glory  shed  by 
ours  over  everythinji'  wliich  came  into  any  relation  to  it.  Bnt 
can  it  be  .  .  .  tliat  what  was  not  Lutheranism  there  is 
Liitheranism  here;  that  what  was  Lutheranism  then  is  not 
Lutheranism  now;  that  Zwingli  or  LTedio,  of  Strasbnrg, 
could,  without  a  change  of  views,  honestly  subscribe  the  Con- 
fession against  wliich  they  had  arrayed  themselves,  that  very 
Confession  the  main  drift  of  some  of  whose  most  important 
Articles  was  to  teach  the  truth  these  men  denied,  and  to 
condemn  the  errors  these  men  fostered  ! 

"The  Confessors  say  that  in  the  Confession:  'There  is 
NOTHING  which  departs  from  the  Church  CaihoUc,  the  Uni- 
vcrml  Christian  Clnirch."  They  declare,  moreover,  that  it 
is  their  grand  design  in  the  Confession  to  avoid  the  'trans- 
mission as  a  hcrihif/r  to  their  children  and  to  the  descendant fi 
of  another  doctrine,  a  doctrine  not  in  conformity  with  the 
pure  Divine  word  and  Christian  truth.'  The  witness  of  a 
true  faith  is  a  witness  to  tlic  end  of  time.  When,  therefore, 
Briick,  tlie  Chancellor  of  Saxony,  presented  the  Confession, 
he  said  :  'By  the  help  of  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  this 
Confession  shall  renuiin  invincible  against  the  gates  of  hell, 
to  eternity.'  "  " 

The  third  characteristic  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  that 
rises  like  an  earnest  strain  in  all  its  voices,  is  the  note  of 
personal  salvation,  tlirough  justification  and  remission  of  sins 
by  faith  ;  and  in  this  it  joins  witli  Luther's  second  article  of 
the  Creed  and  the  fourth  and  fifth  parts  of  his  Catechism. 
It  is  the  Gcspet  idea  made  prominent  in  the  Church  Confes- 
sion:-" Christ  a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but 
for  all  actual  sins  of  men,  when  they  believe  that  they  are 
received  into  favor  and  that  their  sins  are  forgiven  for 
Christ's  sake — God,  not  for  our  own  merits,  but  for  Christ's 
sake,  justifieth  those  who  believe — remission  of  sins  and  jus- 


»Ab    Ecclesia    Catholica— gemeiner    Christlichen    Kirehen. 
'"Prom  Con.   Ref..   pp.   2C1-2CT. 


128         THE    LFTHERAX    COXFESSIONS. 

tification  are  ai)preliended  by  faith — through  baptism  is  of- 
fered the  grace  of  God — for  those  who  have  fallen  after  bap- 
tism there  is  remission  of  sins  whenever  they  are  converted — 
faith,  born  of  the  Gospel,  or  of  absolution,  believes  that  for 
Christ's  sake  sins  are  forgiven — the  Sacraments  were  insti- 
tuted to  awaken  and  confirm  faith  in  those  who  use  them — 
observances  are  not  necessary  to  salvation — the  natural  man 
receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  spirit — our  works  cannot  re- 
concile God  or  merit  forgiveness  of  sins,  g^-ace  and  Justifica- 
tion— Christ  the  only  ]Mediator,  Propitiation,  High  Priest 
and  Intercessor — the  doctrine  of  grace  and  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  is  the  chief  part  of  the  Gospel  and  ought  to  stand 
out  as  the  most  prominent  in  the  riiurch — the  monks  have 
taught  that  by  tlieir  vows  and  observances  they  merited  for- 
giveness of  sins — the  power  of  the  keys  is  a  power  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  and  to  administer  sacra- 
ments— that  the  bishops  allow  the  Gospel  to  be  purely  taught, 
and  that  they  relax  some  few  observances  which  cannot  be 
kept  without  sin."  Where  in  all  the  literature  of  the  Church 
is  the  Gosj^el  of  remission  of  sins  unto  salvation,  by  faith 
alone,  ])rea('lK'(l  in  so  personal  and  yet  so  sacramental  a 
manner!  This  is  the  Gospel  Confession  confessing  Christ 
crucified,  believed  on,  and  distributed  in  Word  and  Sacra- 
ment to  every  meudx'i'  of  the  r\)nnnunion  of  Saints. 

Still  another  majestic  and  most  remarkable  feature  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  is  that  of  respectful  freedom,  in  which 
reverence  and  obedience  for  authority  are  combined  in  the 
true  golden  mean  with  perfect  liberty  of  conscience :-'' In 
obedience  to  Your  Imperial  ^fajesty's  wishes,  we  offer  our 
Confession — abundantly  prepared  to  join  issue  and  to  defend 
the  cause  in  a  general,  free  Christian  Council — to  this  Gen- 
eral Council  we  have  made  ap])eal  in  this  gravest  of  matters 
in  due  manner  and  form  of  law — to  this  appeal  we  still  ad- 
here— neither  do  we  intend  to  relinquish  it  by  this  or  any 
other  document,  of  which  this  also  is  our  solemn  and  public 
testimony- — all  men  are  born  with  sin;  and  cannot  be  justi- 


THE    .WnsTlUBG    f  O  X F  E  S  S 1 0  X .  r?9 

fied  before  God  by  tbeir  own  strength,  but  arc  freely  justi- 
fied for  Christ's  sake — concerning  rites  let  men  be  admon- 
ished that  consciences  are  not  to  be  burdened — lawful  civil 
ordinances  are  good  works  of  God — the  Gospel  does  not 
destroy  the  State  or  the  family — man's  will  has  some  liberty 
for  the  attainment  of  civil  righteousness — faith  is  the  mother 
of  a  good  will  and  right  doing — insomuch  as  abuses  could 
not  he  approved  with  a  good  conscience,  they  have  been  to 
some  extent  corrected — no  law  of  man  can  annul  the  com- 
mandment of  God — we  condenm  the  traditions  which  pre- 
scribe certain  days  and  certain  meats,  with  peril  of  con- 
science— liberty  in  human  rites  was  not  unknown  to  the 
Fathers — Christian  perfection  is  to  fear  God  from  the 
heart — some  have  awkwardly  confounded  the  power  of  the 
Church  and  the  power  of  the  sword — the  power  of  the  Church 
and  the  civil  power  must  not  be  confpunded — let  not  the 
Church  prescribe  la.ws  to  civil  rulers  concerning  the  form 
of  the  Commonwealth — if  bishops  have  the  right  to  burden 
churches  with  infinite  traditions,  and  to  ensnare  consciences, 
why  does  Scripture  so  often  ])rohibit  to  nuike  and  to  listen 
to  traditions  ? — it  is  necessary  that  the  doctrine  of  Christian 
liberty  be  preserved  in  the  churches — the  righteousness  of 
faith  and  Christian  liberty  must  not  be  disregarded — bish- 
ops might  retain  obedience,  if  they  would  not  insist  ujion 
the  observance  of  what  cannot  be  kept  with  a  good  con- 
science— it  is  not  our  design  to  wrest  the  government  from 
the  bishops,  hut  if  they  niake  no  concession,  it  is  for  them 
to  see  how  they  shall  give  account  to  God  for  having,  hij 
their  oljstinacy,  caused  a  schism"  (the  last  word  of  the 
Confession). 

Thus  the  Augsburg  Confession  calmly  introduces  the 
modern  doctrine  of  the  complete  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  into  the  dawn  of  modern  life ;  and  does  so,  from  a 
pureh'  spiritual  point  of  view,  for  the  sake  of  the  souls  of 
men  and  the  freedom  of  the  Church,  and  without  any  ulte- 
rior   design    of    usurping,    as    Rome    attempted    to    do,    the 


130         THE   LUTHER  AX    C  0  X  FE  S  ."<  1 0  X  S. 

reins  of  civil  governmont ;  but,  nevertheless,  the  spiritual 
liberty  thus  implanted  in  the  souls,  did  lead  to  great  and 
nnexpeoted  results  within  the  sphere  of  the  State.  On  this 
j)oint,  we  quote  the  eloquent  words  of  Krauth : — ,- 

''The  Augsburg  Confession  had,  and  has,  great  value,  in 
view  of  tlie  sound  political  princi])les  it  asserted  and  guar- 
anteed. Signed  bv  the  princes  aud  free  cities,  it  was  a  sov- 
ereig-n  ratification  and  guarantee  of  the  rights  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  individual  Christian  in  the  State.  It  asserted 
the  independence  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  as  a  Church ; 
the  distinctness  of  the  spheres  of  the  Church  and  State,  the 
rights  of  the  State  over  the  Christian,  as  a  subject ;  the 
Christian's  duty  to  the  State,  as  a  subject ;  and  the  supremacy 
of  God's  law  and  of  the  demands  of  conscience,  over  all  un- 
righteous enactments  of  num.  It  detined  in  brief,  yet  ample 
statements,  the  entire  relation  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
power."  It  overthrew  the  concei)tion  of  the  Church  as  a  great 
world-dominating  power — taught  the  obligation  of  legitimate 
civil  ordinances,  the  lawfulness  of  Christians  bearing  civil 
office,  the  right  of  the  State  to  demand  oaths,  to  enact  ])enal- 
ties,  and  to  wage  'just  wars,'  and  the  obligation  of  the 
Christian  citizen  to  bear  part  in  them.  It  asserts  that  'God's 
connnand  is  to  be  more  regarded  than  all  usage — that  custom 
introduced  contrary  to  God's  command  is  not  to  be  ap- 
proved.' 'Christians  should  render  obedience  to  magistrates 
and  their  laws  in  all  things,'  'save  only  those  when  they 
command  any  sin,  for  then  they  must  rather  obey  God  than 
men.'  It  overthrew  monasticism  and  enforced  celibacy, 
those  weaknesses  of  the  State:  curbed  the  insolence  of  Pope, 
Bishop  and  Clergy,  and  restored  the  normal  and  divine 
relations  of  man  to  man.  of  subject  to  ruler,  of  Church  to 
State,  of  God's  law  to  liuman  law,  of  loyalty  to  the  rights 
of  conscience.  The  Lutheran  Cimrch  gives  to  every  State 
into  which  she  enters,  her  great  voucher  of  fidelity  to  the 
principles  on  which  alone  free  governments  can  stand. 


"Arts.  VII.,  XVI.,  XXVIII. 


THE   AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  131 

'The  Augsburg  Confession  was  exquisitely  adapted  to 
all  its  objects,  as  a  confession  of  faith,  and  a  defence  of  it. 
In  it  the  very  heart  of  the  Gospel  beats  again.  It  gave 
organic  being  to  what  had  hitherto  been  but  a  tendency,  and 
knit  together  great  nationalities  in  the  holiest  bond  by  which 
men  can  be  held  in  association.  It  enabled  the  Evangelical 
princes,  as  a  body,  to  throw  their  moral  weight  for  truth 
into  the  emi)ire.  These  were  the  starting-points  of  its  great 
work  and  glory  among  men.  To  it,  under  God,  more  than 
to  any  other  cause,  the  whole  Protestant  world  owes  civil 
and  religious  freedom.  Under  it,  as  a  banner,  the  pride  of 
Rome  was  broken,  and  her  armies  destroyed.  It  is  the 
symbol  of  pure  Protestantism,  as  the  three  General  Creeds 
are  symbols  of  that  developing  Catholicity  to  whicli  genuine 
Protestantism  is  related,  as  the  maturing  fruit  is  related 
to  the  blossom.  To  it  the  eyes  of  all  deep  thinkers  have 
been  turned,  as  to  a  star  of  hope  amid  the  internal  strifes 
of  nomiiuil  J^rotestantism.  Gieseler,  the  great  Reformed 
Cliurch  historian,  says:''  '  If  the  question  be.  Which,  among 
all  Protestant  Confessions,  is  best  adapted  for  forming  the 
foundation  of  a  union  among  Protestant  Churches  ?  we  de- 
clare ourselves  unreservedly  for  the  Augsburg  Confession.' 
But  no  genuine  union  can  ever  be  formed  u])on  the  basis 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  except  by  a  hearty  consent  in 
its  whole  faith,  an  honest  reception  of  all  its  statements  of 
doctrine  in  the  sense  which  the  statements  bear  in  the  Con- 
fession itself.  If  there  be  those  who  would  forgive  Rome 
her  unrepented  sins,  they  must  do  it  in  the  face  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  If  there  be  those  who  would  con- 
sent to  a  truce  at  least  with  Rationalism  or  Fanaticism, 
they  must  begin  their  work  by  making  men  forget  tlie  great 
Confession,  which  refused  its  covert  to  them  from  the  l)egin- 
ning. 

"With  the  Augsburg  Confession  begins  the  clearly  recog- 
nized life  of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  the  purified 


"  Theolog.  Sivd.  u.  Kritlk,  1833,  ii,  1142.      Schenkel  takes  the  same  view. 


133         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Church  of  the  West,  on  which  her  enemies  fixed  the  name 
Lutheran.  With  this  Confession  her  most  self-sacrificing 
struggles  and  greatest  achievements  are  connected."  " 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  seen  dominant  in  tlie  Augsburg 
Confession,  as  a  General  Creed  of  the  true  Church,  the 
notes  of  Catholicism,  of  conservatism,  of  Gospel  salvation 
through  faith,  of  freedom  from  sin  and  law  binding  the  con- 
science, which  resulted  also  in  civil  freedom ;  and  now  we 
turn  to  the  remarkable  simplicity  and  the  equally  remarkable 
positiveness  and  ()l)jccliveness  found  in  its  teaching. 

The  great  mysteries  of  the  Trinity,  the  Fall,  the  Incarna- 
tion and  Atonement,  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  the  Means 
of  Grace,  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  the  One  holy 
Church,  Religious  Kites,  and  Ci\  il  Affairs,  are  gathered 
together  in  all  their  essentials,  and  without  comi)lications, 
and  stated  with  the  greatest  force  and  simplicity,  so  that 
nowhere  else  can  such  com])rehensive  and  exact  delineation 
of  the  great  mysteries  of  Cliristianity  be  fnuiid  in  space  so 
small  and  in  phrase  so  crystal.  As  an  exjiansion  of  the  dog- 
matic content  of  the  Confessional  principle,  advancing  upon 
the  three  older  Creeds  and  the  two  newer  Catechisms,  in  an 
utterance  at  once  sufficient,  concise,  complete  and  confes- 
sional, the  Augsburg  Confession  is  without  a  peer. 

As,  finally,  the  Confession  showed  itself  in  sympathy 
with  the  great  Church  (^itholic,  oven  as  it  came  through 
Rome,  and  condemned  the  independent  sects  that  arose  apart 
from  it,  so  it  floes  not  hesitate  to  rebuke  the  errors  which  it 
knew  and  found  in  Rome.  We  shall  let  Krauth  speak  also 
on  this  point :-" 

"The  Augsburg  Confession  has  incalculable  value  as  an 
abiding  witness  against  the  Errors  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  old  true  Catholic  Church  was  almost  lost  in 
pride,  avarice,  and  superstition.     The  great  labor  of  the  body 


"  Con.  Ref.,  pp.   257-9. 
"  Con.  Ref.,  p.   255. 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  133 

of  the  clergy  was  to  defend  the  errors  by  which  they  were 
enriched.  Two  false  doctrines  were  of  especial  value  to  this 
end:  the  first,  that  the  Church  tradition  is  part  of  the 
Rule  of  Faith;  the  second,  that  good  works  can  merit  of 
God.  "With  lx)th  the  formal  and  material  principles  of  the 
Church  corrupted,  what  could  result  but  the  wreck  of  much 
that  is  most  precious  in  Christianity  ?  The  protest  needed 
then  is  needed  still.  The  Roman  Church  has  indeed  for- 
mally abrogated  some  of  the  worst  abuses  which  found  their 
justification  in  her  false  doctrines;  the  pressure  of  Protest- 
ant thinking  forces,  or  the  light  of  Protestant  science,  wins 
her  children  to  a  Christianity  better  than  her  theories;  but 
the  root  of  the  old  evil  remains — the  old  errors  are  not  given 
up,  and  cannot  Ix'.  Rome  once  committed,  is  committed 
beyond  redemption.  It  needs  but  propitious  circumstances 
to  bring  up  any  of  her  errors  in  all  their  ancient  force.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  infallibility,  the  pride  of  consist- 
ency, the  power  which  these  doctrines  give  her,  make  it  cer- 
tain that  they  will  not  be  abandoned.  Against  all  of  Rome's 
many  errors,  and  pre-eminently  against  those  doctrines  which 
are  in  som-e  way  related  to  them  all,  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion must  continue  to  hold  up  the  pure  light  of  the  sole 
Rule  of  Faith,  and  of  its  great  central  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith."  '° 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  its  chief  historic  jewel,  because,  as  Zockler  says, 
"It  forms  the  foundation  laid  in  common  by  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  for  the  whole  Confessional  literature  of  the 
Lutheran  Church."  Or,  to  put  the  matter  differently,  it  un- 
folds the  common  Lutheran  faith  at  that  point  of  develop- 
ment, in  which  the  later  maturity  of  an  inner  dividedness 
had  not  yet  revealed  itself.  It  is  the  fair  blossom  upon 
which  all  can  look  back  with  joy,  and  not  the  final  fruitage 
of  the  Reformation.     The  Protestant  principle  was  begin- 


»=  Fikenscher.   Gcsch.  d.  R.   z.  A^tijsb.,  208  ;   KoUner,  ii,   395. 


134         THE   LUTHERAN    C 0 N FE >^ S 1  0 N S. 

ning  to  unfold  in  its  completeness,  and  was  jnst  in  the  act 
of  rising  to  its  larger  stage. 

Tliat  Zockler  sets  down  as  the  iirst  glory  of  the  Angsbnrg 
Confession  its  worldly  side,  namely,  its  nniversal,  historic 
importance,  as  the  instrument  that  opened  the  way  for  the 
]tolitical  recognition  which  it  has  secured  for  German  Pro- 
testantism as  well  as  that  beyond  Germany,  has  no  interest 
for  us  hero,  where  we  are  treating  of  the  Confessions  of  the 
Cliiircli ;  and  ])articulai-ly  not  in  this  land  of  America,  where 
the  Church  and  the  State  are  forever  to  remain  separate, 
and  where  confessions  of  faith  are  neither  to  seek  nor  to 
receive  any  political  influence.  This  political  influence  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  has  often  been  a  detriment  to  it 
as  a  confession,  and  to  the  sound  Confessional  principle  of 
the  Lutheran  Church. 

Melanchthon  originally  hoped  to  make  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession a  common  standing  ground  between  the  Lutheran 
and  the  llonuin  Churcli,  1)y  excluding  tlie  Reformed;  and 
then,  through  long  years,  by  changing  the  language  of  the 
instrument,  and  by  his  actions  in  the  Interims,  to  make  it  a 
common  standing  gronnd  with  the  Reformed  churches.  Be- 
fore ^[elanclithon's  death  it  was  accepted  by  the  Reformed 
leacK-rs  as  the  common  Protestant  political  svmbol ;"  but  the 
worst  political  use  to  which  it  was  put  came  in  the  following 
century,  with  the  close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  the 
Peace  of  Westphalia  (already  at  Peace  of  Augsburg  in  1555). 
wlien  large  numbers  of  Reformed  theologians  and  princes, 
who  by  no  means  adhered  to  its  doctrines,  signed  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  in  order  to  gain  the  rights  allowed  to 
Lutherans,     Says  Jacobs:-" 

^'The   Confession  thus  lost  its  place   as   a    doctrinal   test 


"The  Augsburg  Confession  was  signed  by  John  Calvin  while  ministering 
to  the  Church  at  Strasburg,  and  as  delegate  to  the  Conference  of  Ratisbon, 
1541  ;  by  Farel  and  Beza  at  the  Conference  in  Worms,  1557  ;  by  the  Calvinists 
at  Bremen,  15tj2;  by  Frederick  III.,  (the  Reformed)  Elector  of  the  Palatinate, 
at  the  Convent  of  princes  in  Naumburg,  1561,  and  again  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg,   15GC;    by   John   Sigismund,   of   Brandenburg,    iu    ltil4. 

"  I>i\tiiicth\-   Doctrines,   p.    105. 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  135 

among  Lutherans.  Tbe  signatures  to  the  Confession  of 
many  who  did  not  accept  all  its  doctrine  rendered  every 
signature  doubtful.  It  was  for  such  reason  that  Arndt  in 
his  dying  testimony  most  solemnly  confessed  'the  true  reli- 
gion of  the  Formula  of  Concord,'  and  Spener  wrote  an  espe- 
cial treatise  in  defence  of  the  same  Formula,  and  the  Halle 
Facidty  declared  that  they  held  with  absolute  firmness  to  all 
the  Symbolical  Books,  and  Muhlenberg  challenged  his  ac- 
cusers to  find  anything  that  he  had  said  or  written  in  con- 
flict with  them." 

The  dream  that  a  union  of  all  Protestantism  may  some  day 
be  brought  about  on  the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
shattered  even  by  such  a  unionist  as  Dr.  Schaff,  who,  after 
referring  to  the  subscription  of  the  German  Evangelical  Diet 
of  1S53  in  Berlin,  when  over  fourteen  hundred  clergymen — 
Lutheran,  German-Reformed,  Evangelical  Unionists  an<l 
]\roravians — acknowledged  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  a 
saving  clause  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Tenth  article, 
which  comj)romise  was  repudiated  by  the  sound  Lutheran 
university  professors  at  Erlangen,  Leii)zig  and  Bostock  '"  as 
a  frivolous  depreciation  of  the  most  precious  symbol  of  Ger- 
nmn  Evangelical  Christendom,"  goes  on  to  say: — 

"On  this  fact  and  the  whole  history  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  some  German  writers  of  the  evangelical  T'uionist 
school  have  based  the  hope  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  may 
one  day  become  the  united  Confession  or  oecumenical  Creed 
of  all  the  evangelical  churches  of  Germany.  This  scheme 
stands  and  falls  with  the  dream  of  a  united  and  national 
Protestant  Church  of  the  German  Empire.  Aside  from  other 
difticulties,  the  Reformed  and  the  majority  of  Unionists,  to- 
gether with  a  considerable  body  of  Lutherans,  can  never  con- 
scientiously subscribe  to  the  Tenth  article  as  it  stands  in 
the  proper  historical  Confession  of  15o0;  while  orthodox 
Lutherans,  on  the  other  hand,  will  repudiate  the  Altered 
edition  of  1540.  The  Invariata  is,  after  all,  a  purely  Luth- 
eran, that  is,  a  denominational  symbol ;  and  the   Yarlata  is 


136         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

a  friendly  approach  of  Lutheranism  towards  the  Reformed 
communion,  which  had  no  share  in  its  original  production 
and  subsequent  modification,  although  it  responded  to  it. 
Xeither  the  one  nor  the  other  edition  can  be  the  expression 
of  a  union,  or  confederation  of  two  distinct  denominations, 
of  which  each  has  its  own  genius,  history  and  symbols  of 
faitli.  Such  an  expression  must  proceed  from  the  theological 
and  religious  life  of  both,  and  meet  the  wants  of  the  present 
age.  Great  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  is,  the  Church  will 
produce  something  greater  still  whenever  the  Spirit  of  God 
moves  it  to  a  new  act  of  faith  in  opposition  to  the  unbelief 
and  misbelief  of  modern  times.  Every  age  must  do  its  own 
work  in  its  own  way." 

This  rejection  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  basis  for 
the  union  of  Protestantism  by  the  greatest  Eeformed  sym- 
bolist in  America  is  not  due  to  the  belief  that  there  is  any 
serious  doctrinal  difference  between  Lutheranism  and  the 
other  evangelical  Protestant  bodies,  but  to  these  three  prev- 
alent and  yet  erroneous  ideas:  that  in  the  opinion  of  modern 
theoloffv,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  noble  as  it  was  for  its 
day,  is  after  all  an  outworn  instrument ;  that  historical  con- 
tinuity in  confessi(m  is  not  vitally  im])ortant;  and  that  no 
Confession  of  a  single  historical  denomination  can  meet  up- 
to-date  issues  in  an  up-to-date  way. 

So  far  from  considering  that  the  teachings  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  separate  Lutherans  from  other  Protestants,  it 
is  usually  understood  and  declared  by  Reformed  theologians, 
and  by  Lutheran  Melanchthonians,  that  the  great  body  of 
fundamental  Protestant  doctrines  is  held  in  common  by  all 
Protestant  denominations,  and  that  the  difference  between 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Confession  is  very  small ; 
that,  in  fact,  they  are  identical,  on  the  main  points,  and 
differ  only  as  to  one  or  two  articles.  Thus  Schaff  "  himself 
says,   ''The   doctrinal   difference  between   Lutheranism    and 


"  Schaff  Creed  of  Christendom,  I,  p.   237. 
«/o.  I,  p.  212. 


THE   AUGSBUBG    CONFESSION.  137 

Reform,  was  originally  confined  to  two  articles,  namely,  the 
nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Euchar- 
ist, and  the  extent  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  ante-historic 
and  pre-numdane  act  of  predestination."  And,  again,  on 
the  following  page,  he  says,  "  The  two  great  families  of 
Protestantism  are  united  in  all  essential  articles  of  faith." 

But  this  is  a  superficial  view  of  the  case.  The  difference 
between  the  various  Protestant  systems  of  faith  lies  not 
merely  in  some  difference  of  their  component  elements,  but 
also  in  the  way  in  which  those  elements  are  set  in  their 
relation  to  each  other ;  and  the  larger  and  more  sweeping 
difference,  which  counts  on  the  Avhole,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
latter  fact.  There  is  very  little  difference,  so  far  as  the  ele- 
ments are  concerned,  between  HmO  and  H2O2,  but  the  small 
additional  quantity  of  "  0  "  in  the  combination  creates  the 
great  difference  between  harmless  water  and  the  painful 
bleaching  agent  binoxide  of  hydrogen.  There  is  absolutely 
no  difference  between  the  characters  that  make  up  the  lovely 
word  "star"  and  those  that  constitute  the  low  word  "rats," 
but  the  mctliod  of  combination  induces  a  difference  almost  as 
great  as  that  between  heaven  and  earth.  The  order  of  com- 
bination in  the  '  set '  of  spiritual  entities  creates  divergencies 
very  great,  between  elements  that  seem  at  first  glance  to  be 
almost  or  entirely  identical. 

The  Roman  Confession  writes  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
large,  and  makes  it  the  visible  centre  on  which  all  else  re- 
volves. The  original  Reformed  Confession  writes  the  doc- 
trine of  God,  our  Sovereign  and  Creator,  large,  and  makes 
it  the  centre  and  goal  of  the  faith.  Many  of  the  older  sects 
exalted  the  doctrine  of  the  individual  and  his  freedom,  as 
the  large  and  controlling  element  in  their  faith ;  and  many 
of  the  newer  Reformed  and  the  churches  of  the  Xew  The- 
ology write  the  doctrine  of  Society,  of  the  Kinr/dom  of  God 
as  it  is  to  develop  in  this  world,  as  the  large  central  thing 
in  religion.  Our  modern  religious  thought,  especially  that 
part  which  considers  the  old  Confessions  to  be  antiquated, 


138         THE   LUTHERAX    COXFESSIOXS. 

instead  of  making  the  floctrine  of  God,  or  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  the  centre  of  their  faith,  makes  man  himself  the 
central  and  most  important  figure  in  religion,  and,  in  this 
connection,  permits  the  introduction  of  all  kinds  of  Pela- 
gian and  rationalistic  error. 

The  Lutheran  Confession  is  the  one  Confession  that  writes 
the  doctrine  of  Chy'ist  large.  "Of  the  Attributes  of  God  and 
the  Holy  Trinity  it  has  nothing  to  say,  except  as  they  are 
viewed  in  and  through  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  sin  it  learns 
in  its  full  significance  only  as  seen  in  the  light  of  the  incar- 
nation, and  as  estimated  from  the  standpoint  of  redemption. 
The  facts  of  predestination,  Luther  taught,  were  to  be  con- 
sidered only  after  the  entire  plan  of  salvation  presented  in 
the  Gospel  was  learned.  It  discriminates  between  those 
books  of  the  Bible  that  with  greater  and  less  fulness  treat 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  If  Christology  is  thus  the  centre, 
the  centre  of  Christology  is  Christ's  oflice  as  Priest,  and 
particularly  that  of  completed  redemption  through  his  vicar- 
ious satisfaction.  In  Word  and  Sacraments  it  recognizes 
the  means  whereby  the  fruits  of  this  satisfaction  are  ap- 
plied. The  distinction  between  Law  and  Gospel,  drawn 
with  a  clearness  and  fulness  that  may  be  searched  for  else- 
where in  vain,  has  the  same  explanation.  The  doctrine  of 
Christ  is  to  it  the  solution  of  all  the  other  doctrines.  The 
union  of  the  divine  and  human,  unchanged  and  unconfused, 
and  yet  the  one  penetrating  and  energizing  the  other,  ])er- 
vades  the  entire  system.  This  belongs  to  the  doctrines  of 
Inspiration,  Providential  Concurrence,  Faith,  the  Mystical 
Union,  the  Word,  the  Sacraments,  Prayer,  as  well  as  Chris- 
tology." " 

So  far  as  the  ordinary  American  Protestantism  is  con- 
cerned, much  of  whose  leaven  is  infused  into  parts  of  the 
Lutheran  Church ;  and  many  of  whose  leaders  assume  or 
declare  that  Lutheranism  is  only  one  of  the  many  varieties 
of  a  common  evangelical  Christianity,  with  a  peculiar  doc- 

*"  Jacobs. 


THE   AUGSBURG    COXFESSION,  139 

trine  of  the  Lorcrs  Supper,  we  iniist  say  that  Lntheranism 
differs  from  this  Prutestaiitisiii  t'jtally  in  the  })rinciple  of 
the  Church;  and  in  larger  or  less  part  in  the  principle  of 
salvation. 

Let  us  take  the  principle  of  the  Church,  Avliich,  to 
the  urdinary  American  Protestant,  is  either  an  inslitution 
of  religious  convenience;  or  is  a  visij)le  IkxIv  composed  of 
the  aggregate  of  the  Protestant  religious  bodies  in  the  land, 
able  in  their  opinion  to  make  it  the  one  fold  of  the  one 
Shepherd  by  their  coming  closer  together,  and  by  their  recog- 
nizing each  other  in  a  common  fellowshi]);  and  which  springs 
up  or  dies  away,  as  people  have  more  or  less  contact  with  the 
Bil)h'.  Tlic  nible  is  an  individual  thing,  and  salvation  is 
an  individual  thing;  and  there  is  no  particular  fixed  rela- 
tion between  the  Bible  and  the  Church,  or  the  individual 
and  the  Church.  The  Bible  is  here,  and  the  individual  is 
here,  and  salvation  is  here,  and,  to  spread  the  Bible  and  save 
the  race,  men  join  together  and  organize  a  (^hurch. 

To  this  conception  we  reply,  that  the  Lutheran  Church, 
though  it,  with  all  its  heart,  rejects  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  cannot  agree  to  rob  the  Church  of  its  own  ob- 
jective strength,  with  which  it  was  clothed  l)y  Christ  Him- 
self. 

Our  faith  holds  that  the  "Word  of  God,  in  its  work  in  the 
world,  has  not  returned  unto  Him  void;  but  has  brought 
forth  rich  results,  which  no  individual  can  exhaust,  and 
which  no  generation  can  neglect,  and  which  are  organically 
inherent  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  is  itself  the  con- 
tinuous liring  iritness,  in  the  preaching  of  the  Word  and 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  of  Christ  and  His 
truth. 

Xot  that  the  Church  is  the  Source  of  the  Truth,  or  its 
Xorm.  It  must  itself  be  constantly  tested,  pruned  and  cor- 
rected by  the  Word  ;  but  with  all  its  fallibility,  it  is  Christ's 
true  and  trusty  AVitness,  more  valuable  and  more  to  be 
heededj  than  the  most  brilliant  self-commissioned  individual 


140         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

or  age,  which  goes  to  the  Word  on  its  own  charges,  and  offers 
us  that  which  it  in  itself  and  by  itself  has  discovered  to  be 
true. 

Extreme  Protestantism  ignores  this  continuous  living  Wit- 
ness, the  historical  Church,  as  a  negligible  factor,  and 
throws  the  congregation,  the  pastor  and  even  the  individual 
soul  back,  as  an  isolated  unit,  upon  the  rock  of  Scripture. 
It  isolates  Scripture  from  the  help  of  its  own  results  in 
contact  with  the  greatest  and  most  sanctified  saints  of  the 
Church,  and  bids  every  raw  mind  draw  not  only  faith  and 
salvation,  but  the  whole  content  of  truth  from  Scripture, 
by  its  own  unaided  faculties. 

In  pure  Protestantism,  Scripture  apprehended  by  me 
alone  is  the  exclusive  source  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  or- 
ganization; in  our  evangelical  faith.  Scripture,  a])pi"ehended 
by  the  ( 'hurch,  sinnmarized  by  the  (Confession,  and  approved 
by  my  judgment  and  conscience,  is  the  norm  and  test  of  doc- 
trine, worship  and  organization,  that  has  grown  under  the 
constant  apjdication  of  the  pure  Word  to  the  life  of  the 
Comnninion  of  Saints. 

Pure  Protestantism,  if  it  be  Augustinian,  sets  every  ele- 
ment of  revelation  and  faith  under  the  centralizing  influ- 
ence of  Divine  Law.  Pure  Protestantism,  if  it  be  Pelagian, 
groups  every  element  of  revelation  and  faith  around  tlie 
centre  of  Human  Freedom.  But  Evangelical  and  Catholic 
Protestantism  groups  every  element  of  revelation  and  faith 
around  Christ,  the  sacrificial  source  "  of  divine  justification 
and  the  substance  of  human  faith.  Our  faith  does  not 
centre  its  gravity  either  in  the  distant  divine,  or  in  the 
helpless  human ;  but  in  the  concrete,  yet  perfect  divine- 
human  Person  of  Christ.  We  hold  to  the  Divine,  both  Law 
and  LoAT,  yet  through  Christ.  We  hold  to  the  human,  cre- 
ated in  the  Divine  image  and  corrupted  by  sin,  yet  restored 
by  Christ. 

^  i.  e.,  ground.  '  ,  • 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  lU 

Freedom,  salvation,  gospel,  grace,  Christ,  arc  elements  in 
some  Protestant  systems ;  faith,  freedom,  works,  are  elements 
in  other  Protestant  systems ;  but  the  balance  between  God 
and  man,  as  real  in  Christ,  in  Predestination,  in  Redemption, 
in  the  Person  of  Christ,  in  Scripture,  in  the  Word  of  God,  in 
Justification,  Regeneration,  Sanctification,  in  the  Sacraments, 
in  the  Church,  in  Confession  and  Absolution,  in  the  State, 
in  History,  and  in  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Christian,  is  com- 
plete in  the  Lutheran  Faith  alone. 

Pure  Pelagian  Protestantism  comes  to  God  through  man, 
without  the  Gospel.  Pure  Senii-Pclagian  Protestantism,  in 
which  are  practically  found  the  bulk  of  American  Protestants 
to-day,  comes  to  God  through  the  Gospel  and  through  man. 
Pure  Augustinian  Protestantism,  rare  in  American  Protest- 
antism to-day,  comes  through  God  to  the  Gospel;  but  Pure 
Evangelical  iFaith  comes  to  God  through  the  Gospel  alone — 
sola. 

The  resultant  difference  between  denominational  Protest- 
antism— whether  Augustinian  or  Semi-Pelagian,  or  merely 
sentimental,  or  Protestantism  poised  completely  on  a  hu- 
man centre — and  Lutheranism,  is  fundamental;  and  runs 
into  every  channel  of  Confession,  Worship,  Organization, 
Spirit  and  Life.  It  is  not  a  difference  in  degree,  but  in 
quality;  yet  not  in  all  cases  a  difference  in  elements,  for 
some  Protestant  faiths  have  the  full  evangelical  elements, 
but  a  difference  in  the  great  organizing  principle  that  is  in 
control  of  the  elements. 

"Calvinism  is  the  proper  Protestant  counterpart  of  Ro- 
manism. The  whole  system  of  the  dependence  of  the  indi- 
vidual on  a  power  which  absolutely  determines  him  in  his 
willing  and  doing,  the  system  which  is  set  up  by  Catholi- 
cism in  its  doctrine  of  the  Church,  is  bound  up  by  Calvin- 
ism in  its  absolute  decree.  In  Calvinism,  everything  saving 
and  salutary  lies  in  the  decree ;  in  Romanism,  it  lies  in  the 
Church.     The  Lutheran  system,  with  its  faith  reposing  on 

the  historical  fact  of  the  redemption,  holds  the  mean  be- 
13 


113         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tween  Calvinism  and  Romanism — between  the  transcendant 
idealism  of  the  one,  the  external  realism  of  the  other."*' 

''  The  essential  difference  between  Calvin  and  Trent  con- 
sists not  in  the  definition  of  the  Church,  but  in  the  historic 
answer  to  the  question.  Is  the  llonian  Church  the  true 
Church  (  For  Calvin,  the  Church  was  a  sacramental  organi- 
zation with  an  authoritative  ministry  of  ihe  Word,  watching 
over  the  State  in  spiritual  things,  while  the  State  did  its 
behests  in  material  things."  "^ 

For  Zwingli,  and  for  all  Innnanists,  the  Church  is  the 
Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth,  which  watches  over  the  State 
in  spiritual  things,  aud  sees  in  the  moral  fruits  of  earthly 
citizenship  the  attainment  of  its  goal  and  the  realization  of 
its  ideals."* 

But  for  us,  the  Church  is  the  congregation  of  believing 
saints  in  which  the  Gospel,  the  saving  Word  and  Sacraments 
of  Christ,  are  faithfully  used,  and  wliich  has  neither  national 
goal,  visible  aim,  nor  earthly  ideal,  but  eud^races  in  its  in- 
visible fellowship  of  the  body  of  Christ,  true  believers  of 
every  nation  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going  down 
thereof. 

Exceedingly  superficial  do  the  attempts  appear  that  classify 
Lutheranism  as  a  simple  variation  of  the  common  Protestant 


"F.  C.  Baur. 

**  Thos.  HaU  of  Union  Theological   Seminary   in   Ilihhert  Journal. 

-*  "  In  his  practical  operations  in  the  chnioh.  Zwingli  betrays  his  de- 
pendence upon  the  mediipva!  ideals.  But  the  theocratic  ideal  which  he 
pursued  allows  to  neither  church  nor  state  its  proper  position.  .  .  .  The  laws 
of  the  state  are,  after  all,  valid  only  in  so  far  as  they  conform  to  the  law 
of  the  church,  or  the  Bible.  This  is  a  mediaeval  idea.  The  carrying 
oTit  of  his  reformatory  work  embraced  both  a  new  system  of  doctrine  and  a 
new  order  of  social  and  practical  life,  which  must  be  enforced  by  the  agency 
of  the  state.  Christianity  is  an  affair  of  the  state,  but  the  state  Is  the  organ 
of  the  church.  Like  Savonarola,  Zwingli  sought  to  reform  his  city  according 
to  the  divine  law  of  the  Bible,  with  the  help  of  the  secular  power  It  was 
also  in  accord  with  the  example  of  Savonarola  that  Zwingli's  political  am- 
bition was  not  satisfied  with  the  direction  of  his  native  city,  but  associated 
his  direct  reformatory  labors  with  political  combinations  of  the  widest  and 
most  daring  character.  Thus,  in  every  sphere  of  his  doctrinal  and  prac- 
tical activity,  we  are  impressed  with  the  mediaeval  and  humanistic  limita- 
tions of  Zwingli.  and  that,  too,  in  such  forms  as  to  emphasize  the  contrast 
between  his  ideas  and  tho.se  of  Luther." — Seeberg,  Hist,  of  Doct.,  II,  p.  317. 
318. 


THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSIOX.  143 

doctrine.  Liitlior  was  thoroughly  iii  the  right;  and  felt  what 
he  Avas  unable  briefly  to  express,  with  respect  to  the  new 
shoot  of  rationalized  Protestantism  that  was  arising  before 
him,  when  he  said,  "Ihr  habt  einen  andern  Geist  als  wir." 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE   HISTORY    AND   TENDENCY    OF   THE    COX- 
FESSION^YL    PEIXCIPLE    IX    THE    CHUIICH. 

Faith  the  Source  of  Co!ifession — By  Personal  Confession  the  Word  of  the  Lord 
Multiplied  and  the  Church  Prevailed — The  Confession  of  Peter — The  Official 
Testimony  of  the  Church,  as  its  Public  Witness  to  the  Word,  is  Dynamic — The 
Confession  is  More  than  a  Symbol — Christ  the  High  Priest  of  our  Confession — 
The  Church  Developing  her  Confessions — The  Cooling  of  Confessional  Ardor — 
Orthodoxy — Indifferentism  in  Both  the  Post-Nicene  and  the  Post- Reformation 
Periods— Calixtus  above  the  Confessions — The  Historical  and  Comparative 
Standpoint — Walch — Planck — Marheinecke — Winer — Confessional  Indifferent- 
ism is  the  Body  without  the  Breath  of  Life — The  Later  Eighteenth-Century 
Rationalism — The  Standpoint  of  True  Lutheranism. 

IT  has  already  boon  pointed  out  that  the  Xew  Testament  in- 
timately connects  Confession' and  Faith,  The  two  go  to- 
gether naturally  and  necessarily.  Confession  is  the  coun- 
terpart of  faitli— it  is  faith  come  to  utterance.  The  Word 
works  faith,  and  faith  brings  forth  Confession.  Or,  as  St. 
J'aul  says,  '*  The  Avord  of  faith  is  in  heart  and  mouth," 
Romans  10 :  8.  'T  have  believed,"  says  he,  ''and,  therefore, 
have  I  spoken." 

In  Confession,  then,  it  is  faith  that  is  active.  It  testifies 
in  loyalty  to  conviction  within,  and  in  order  to  beget,  repro- 
duce and  quicken  faith  in  others.  Incidentally,  it  strength- 
ens its  own  conviction  through  the  act  of  Confession. 

Public  Confession,  Avhich  adds  personal  conviction  to 
proclamation,  is  the  great  builder  and  strengthener  of  the 
Church.  Xothing  so  transforms  the  ''pale  belief"  of  a  con- 
gregation into  "strong,  full-blooded  conviction,"  as  public  con- 
fession in  its  midst.     The  man  who  confesses  has  committed 

144 


HISTORY    OF    THE    PRINCIPLE.  145 

himself  in  weighty  matters  of  principle  and  life  before  his 
fellows.  Sparks  rising  forth  from  the  glowing  truth  within 
him  kindle  a  flame  in  soul  after  soul.  The  Confession  fills 
the  assembled  congregation  with  the  inner  and  living  power 
of  the  Word,  so  that  it  has  become  '"of  one  mind  and  one 
soul.'' 

Thus  in  public  confession,  faith  in  Christ  reaches  its  most 
impressive  power;  and  the  "iK-liof  unto  righteousness"  in  the 
heart,  becomes  the  ''confession  unto  salvation"  with  the 
mouth  (Romans  10:  10).  Thus  the  ''full  assurance  of 
faith,"  in  the  heart,  becomes  the  outer  ''holding  fast  to  the 
confession  of  our  hope,"  in  the  act  (Ileb.  10:  22,  23). 

Thus  we  see  it  to  be  one  of  the  main  purposes  of  confes- 
sion to  give  evidence  of  the  faith  that  is  within,  "confessing 
the  good  confession  before  many  witnesses"  (1  Timothy  G: 
12),  and  "not  being  ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our  Lord" 
(2  Timothy  1:  8). 

Thus  confession  is  the  living  personal  fountain  located  in 
the  time  and  space  of  this  outer  world,  whose  source  is 
faith,  and  whose  utterance  is  the  Faith. 

Thus  also  the  Confession  is  the  Faith,  uttered  as  suiting 
time  and  place,  unfolded,  and,  when  necessary,  defined,  dis- 
tinguished, amplified ;  but  always  by  a  power  within  itself, 
L  e.,  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  by  means  of  such  Public  Con- 
fession, of  which  preaching  is  the  one  most  active,  most  con- 
stant and  most  prominent  form,'  that  the  Faith  is  confirmed 
and  spread,  and  that  the  Church  itself,  with  its  blessings,  is 
extended. 

On  the  occasion  of  the  great  Confession  of  Peter  (Matt. 
16:  15,  10),  Christ,  for  the  first  time,  spake  of  His  Church; 
and  declared  that  this  Church  was  to  be  built  on  the  rock 
of  the  Confession  of  Christ  (Matt.  16:  18).  "So  it  proved 
to  be  in  after  days.    It  was  by  St.  Peter's  powerful  testimony 


'  The  Confession  of  Sins  is  diverse  from  the  Confession  of  Faith.  In 
The  Order  of  Public  Service,  the  Office  of  the  Word  closely  connects  the 
Creed,  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  the  Congregation,  with  the  Sermon,  the 
Confession   of   Faith   by   the  one  who   administers,    ».    t.^    preaches   the    Word. 


146         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

to  Jesus,  as  the  risen  Lord  and  Christ  (Acts  2 :  32-36),  that, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  three  thousand  souls  were  led  gladly 
to  receive  the  Word,  and,  in  Baptism,  to  confess  for  them- 
selves, Christ  (vv.  37-41).  Paul  knew  the  mighty  power 
that  inheres  in  Confession ;  and  both  in  his  preaching  and 
writing  confessed  (Acts  22:  6ff;  2(>:  12  ff;  Gal.  1:  15  ff) 
Jesus  afresh  as  his  Saviour  and  Lord.  It  was  above  all 
else  by  the  personal  confessions  of  humble  individuals — a 
testimony  often  sealed  with  blood  (Pev.  2:  13;  12:  11)  — 
that  the  pagan  emi)ire  of  Pome  was  cast  down  and  the 
Church  of  Christ  built  upon  its  ruins.  And  it  is  still  by 
personal  confession,  in  one  form  or  another,  that  the  Word 
of  the  Lord  grows  and  multiplies,  and  His  Church  prevails 
against  'the  gates  of  Hell.'  " 

What  is  true  of  the  living  Confession  of  the  preacher  is 
true  just  as  directly,  even  if  more  abstractly,  but  in  a 
wider  and,  in  certain  respects,  more  weighty  sense,  of  the 
official  utterance  and  testimony  of  the  Church,  which  is  not, 
as  we  ministers  are  too  apt  to  assume,  a  map  showing  the 
demarcations  of  the  denominational  field  of  Christianity 
for  the  convenience  and  guidance  of  its  theologians,  but 
which  is  a  public  witness  and  testimony  of  the  Church's 
Faith  before  all  the  world. 

The  Church's  Confessions,  then,  in  their  chief  strength 
and  purj)ose,  and  in  their  highest  and  dynamic  sense,  are 
not  completely  described  in  the  traditional  term,  ^'Sym- 
bols,"  employed  to  designate  them.  A  Symbol  is  the  ac- 
cepted and  marked  material  resulting  from  a  critical  exami- 
nation of  the  Faith  in  Scripture.  The  Symbol  embraces 
two  ideas :  that  of  comparison,  definition  and  identification, 
and  that  of  the  actual  use  of  what  has  been  thus  compared, 
defined  and  identified  in  Confession.  The  first  element  is 
])reliminary  to  the  second,  and  is  not  complete,  without  the 
second,  in  itself.  Even  as  the  Word  is  more  than  the  Scrip- 
ture, so  is  the  confession  in  the  Confession  more  than  the 
distinguishing  and  identifying  element  of  the  Synd)ol. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    PRINCIPLE.  147 

The  i^iiproine  position  of  Confession  is  seen  in  the  life  and 
Avork  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who  in  "witnessing  a  good 
confession  before  Pontius  Pilate''  (1  Tim.  0:  lo)  testified 
that  ''to  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I 
into  the  world"  (John  18:  oT)  ;  and  Whose  deepest  teach- 
ings were,  not  indeed  a  Confession  in  the  sense  of  an  avowal 
of  saving  faith,  but  a  confession  in  the  sense  of  requiring 
of  such  great  faith  an  avowal  of  such  supreme  knowledge 
(Cp.  His  discourses,  John,  chapters  6-16). 

Still  further  did  He  show  the  pre-eminent  place  that  He 
gave  to  Confession,  by  His  own  most  solemn  teachings  and 
warnings  as  to  it,  and  the  apostles  reflect  His  words.  "Who- 
soever shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also 
before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  The  Confession  here 
asked  is  not  a  verbal  subscription.*  It  is  confessing  Christ 
out  of  a  state  of  iimer  oneness  with  Him.  The  confessor 
confesses  out  of  his  life  in  Christ,  out  of  the  identity  be- 
tween Christ  and  himself  brought  about  by  faith.  It  is  the 
confession  of  those  who  have  been  "perfected  into  one"  wnth 
Christ,  "  that  the  world  may  know  that  tliou  hast  sent  me." 
"  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  of  God  "  (1  ,Iohn  4:2).  "If  thou  shalt  con- 
fess wath  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in 
thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou 
shalt  be  saved."  Thus  Christ  becomes  the  High  Priest  and 
Apostle  of  our  Confession  (Heb.  -3  :  1). 

The  Confession  of  Faith  in  the  Christian  Church  gath- 
ers, as  we  saw  at  length  in  the  last  two  chapters,  around  the 
name,  person  and  w^ork  of  Christ.  The  Gospels  and  the 
Epistles  are  filled  with  the  material  for  the  elaboration  of 
a  full  confession  of  Christ ;  and  the  Church,  under  the  de- 
veloping influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  the  refining 
hand  of  Providence,  gave  herself  wath  great  ardor  to  the 
creation,    the    maintenance    and    the    defense    of   her   great 


"The   " 'o  Legon,   Kyrie,   Ky'rie  "   of  Matt.   7:21,    in   contradistinction   to   the 
'o   Poion,"   is   a   verbal   subscriber. 


148         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Confession, — first  in  the  embryonic  elements  of  public  Con- 
fession in  the  New  Testament,  as  they  were  associated  with 
the  reception  of  new  members  in  Holy  Baptism;  then  in  the 
Formula  of  the  Baptismal  Confession,  as  it  grew  earlier 
into  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  afterwards  into  the  Nicene 
Creed ;  and  still  later,  as  it  develoj)ed  against  error,  into  the 
Athanasian  Creed. 

With  the  fresh  outburst  of  Faith  at  the  beginning  and 
during  the  Reformation,  and  amid  new  and  mighty  trials 
first  from  without,  and  then  from  within,  the  Cliurch  again 
became  great  and  supreme  in  her  Witness  and  Confession. 
Again,  with  the  rise  of  Lutheranism,  which  is  the  synthesis 
of  individual  freedom  in  the  conscience  and  of  the  authority 
of  the  divine  Word  within  the  communion  of  saints/  the 
Church  rose  to  heroic  and  complete  Confession,  until  at  last 
the  adjustment  to  Protestantism,  so  far  as  the  Word  was 
concerned,  was  completed. 

In  these  two  great  cycles  of  Confession  in  the  Christian 
Church  we  see  a  tendency  and  learn  a  lesson  that  is  most 
instructive  to  the  Church  that  now  is  and  that  is  to  come. 
When  primeval  confessional  ardor  begins  to  cool,  and,  like 
molten  metal,  to  harden  into  fixed  external  form,  as  it  will 
do  with  the  lapse  of  time,  there  are  two  dangers  to  be  feared. 
The  one  is  that  of  a  cast-iron  rigidity  in  adherence,  which 
becomes  mechanical,  superficial  and  oppressive.  The  other 
is  a  dead  coldness  of  indiflferentism  which  chills  the  vital 
touch  between  the  confessing  C^hurch  and  its  Confession. 

In  the  first  instance  we  have  an  insistence  and  severity  of 
outer  orthodoxy  in  rule  and  form  that  becomes  almost  abso- 
lute in  its  assertion  of  power.  In  the  other  case  we  have 
a  dying  away  of  the  vitality  of  the  inner  substance,  so  that 
only  the  outer  form  is  left,  but  as  a  mere  historical  rem- 
nant.    The  spirit  has  fled,  and  left  an  interesting  shell  be- 


3  Freedom  of  consolence,  the  first  element  of  the  synthesis,  without  the 
second  element,  is  sectarianism  ;  and  the  authority  of  the  Church  without  the 
first   element,   freedom   of  conscience,    is   Romanism. 


HISTORY    OF    THE   PRIXCirLE.  119 

hind  it,  to  be  picked  up  and  handled  and  made  the  object 
of  research  like  other  facts  in  the  field  of  knowledge,  but 
not  to  serve  the  purpose  originally  intended. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  both  these  dangers  have  been  twice 
encountered  by  the  Church  of  Christ  in  its  historical  devel- 
opment. After  the  mighty  confessional  life  of  the  Xew 
Testament,  and  after  the  original  glow  and  fervor  of  the 
Apostolic  age  had  died  away,  and  the  Faith  was  now  com- 
ing, and  came,  into  heroic  contact  with  the  world  powers, 
Ave  find  the  Confessional  Baptismal  Formula  and  other  forms 
of  instruction  hardening  into  the  Kav&v  t^<;  dkr}0€La<;,*  the 
rcfjula  ecclesiac,  the  rcgula  fidci,  the  grainnia,  the  graplie — 
"  Symholum  est  regida  fide  I  h  re  vis  et  grandis"  (Augustine) 
— which  attained,  in  the  minds  of  the  orthodox,  almost  to 
the  strength  of  insjiiration. 

Again,  in  a  similar  period  in  the  Seventeenth  Century, 
we  find  the  Confessions  acting  as  an  ecclesiastical  regida 
fidei,  mediately  illuminated,  and  the  confessional  spirit  hard- 
ening into  extreme  rigidity." 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  post-Nicene  period  of  the  An- 
cient Churchy  when  the  world  had  entered  into  her  counsels, 
we  find  the  original  orthodoxy  of  Apostolic  confession  on  the 
wane.  Pelagianism  arose,  A.  D.,  411-31,  watli  Semi-Pela- 
gianism,  A.  D.,  427-29 ;  and  then  there  came  the  controversy 
and  split  between  the  East  and  the  West  on  ceremonies  and 
government,  and  the  broadening  out  and  filtering  down  of 
theology  in  Boethius,  Cassiodorus,  Isidore,  Gregory  of  Tours, 
and  the  venerable  Bede. 

In  the  same  way,  after  the   Second  Awakening  of  the 


* "  Apart  from  the  Scriptures,"  says  Harnack ;  "  in  connection  with  the 
Scriptures,"   says  Kunze. 

■*  "  The  dispute  with  Calixtus  led  the  Lutheran  theologians  to  postulate  a 
mediate  inspiration  (illumination),  and  consequently,  also,  a  divine  authority 
for  the  Symbolical  Books  ;  but  the  distinction  between  the  canon  of  Scripture 
and  such  standards  is,  nevertheless,  constantly  preserved  in  word,  if  not 
always  in  fact.  In  reality  the  Symbolical  Books  were  regarded  as  a  Kafion 
tCs  Pisteos  throughout  the  Seventeenth  Century  side  by  side  with  the 
Scriptures,  inasmuch  as  the  faith  was  directly  grounded  on  the  symbol  rather 
than  on  the  Bible." 


loO         THE    LUTHER  AX    CONFESSIONS. 

Church,  and  after  the  confessional  ardor  of  the  Reformation 
had  first  chilled  into  hard  and  superficial  orthodoxy,  it 
gave  way  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  to  the  confessional  in- 
differentism  of  the  periods  of  illumination  and  rational- 
ism. 

T]ie  Confessions  now  died  away  except  as  documentary 
material  for  historical  examination.  It  is  unfortunate,  but 
natural,  that  the  critical  examination  of  the  Confessions  as 
pure  history,  and  the  comparative  study  of  the  Confessional 
Principle  takes  its  first  rise  and  receives  its  point  of  view 
and  its  terminology  in  this  age  of  confessional  indifierent- 
ism;  and  that  the  usual  mode  of  approach  and  estimation 
of  a  symbol  by  us  is  based  on  the  presui)position  that  it  is 
a  document  of  historical  testimony,  an  exhibit  of  a  past 
age,  rather  than  a  ripe  fruit  of  the  Christian  Church, 
a  living  possession,  for  active  confessional  use  in  the  pres- 
ent day.  Much  of  the  prejudice  against  Catechisms  and 
a  sound  confessional  s})irit  is  a  lieritage  to  us  from  the 
latitudinarian  rationalism  of  the  Eighteenth  Century. 

It  was  the  syncretistic  ccmtroversy  that  marked  the  turn- 
ing-point in  the  relation  of  theology  to  the  Confessions, 
and  that  led  to  that  change  in  the  form  of  theological 
science  that  caused  the  Confessions  to  be  regarded  more  as 
historical  than  as  living  testimonies.  Calixtus  claimed  a 
theological  viewjxiint  tluit  lay  above  tlie  Confessions,  in  his 
consensus  quinquc'secidaris  ecclesice  pritt\(vvce,  from  which 
he  sought  to  judge,  on  a  couijiarative  basis,  the  doctrinal 
differences  of  the  various  Churches.  It  was  no  longer  tlie 
confessional  doctrines  that  were  regarded  as  objective,  but 
it  was  the  confessional  differences  that  were  reviewed  from 
this  higher  and  supposedly  objective  standpoint. 

The  point  of  view  was  no  longer  that  of  the  loyal  confes- 
sor, but  that  of  an  objective  student  who  regarded  all  these 
positions  of  the  past  witli  impartial  equanimity.  The  an- 
tagonistic doctrines  of  conflicting  confessions  were  treated 
historically,    and    not    confcssionaUi/.      The    pioneer    works 


IIISTOnr    OF    THE    PRIXCIPLE.  i:.i 

of  Walch,  Semler,  Planck  and  others,  from  Avliom  we  draw 
many  conceptions  to-day,  were  thus  infected,  as  was  also  the 
extreme  ortlio(h)x  school,  represented  by  Valentine  Loescher 
in  his  Reformations-Akta  and  his  Historia  motuum.  This 
was  also  the  case  with  Chr.  ]\r.  Pfaif,  Buddeus,  Baumgarten, 
J.  S.  Fenerlin,  W.  F.  Walch,  and  others. 

The  old  ardor  of  active  testimony  was  extinguished ;  and 
we  are  thus  burdened  to-day  yet  with  the  historical  and 
external  atmosphere  of  comparative  theology,  in  attempt- 
ing to  come  into  touch  and  to  proper  estimate  of  the  Sym- 
bolical Books,  through  the  isagogical  work  done  on  them  at 
the  ebb  of  the  tide  of  the  confessional  principle. 

The  new  science  of  historical  Confessional  study — Sym- 
bolics, as  it  came  to  be  termed,  later  on — began  with  G.  F. 
Planck,  Winer,  and  Planck's  disciple,  Marheinecke.  Planck 
provided  a  genetic,  pragmatic  exposition  of  the  chief  eccle- 
siastical systems  in  his  known  large  works,  The  liistory  of 
the  Protestant  Lelirhegriff  and  The  Plisiory  of  the  CatlioUc 
Gcselhchafts-Verfassung.  In  his  small  volume,  "  .1  Si-etch 
of  Historical  and  Comparative  Delineation  of  the  Dogmatic 
Systems  of  our  Leading  Christian  Parties  according  to  their 
Fundamental  Conceptions,  and  the  Doctrinal  Distinctions 
drawn  therefrom  and  their  Practical  Consequences,  Guttin- 
gen,  1706,"  he  arranged  the  idea  and  the  plan  of  a  compara- 
tive Confessional  Science. 

Planck  was  the  prince  of  pragmatic  historians,  springing 
up  in  the  heart  of  the  age  of  rationalism,  and  influenced,  as 
he  himself  tells  us,  by  the  three  great  principles  that  sepa- 
rated his  time,  as  by  a  chasm,  from  the  old  orthodoxy.  The 
first  of  these  was  a  deeper  critical  foundation  for  historical 
and  dogmatic  knowledge.  The  second  was  freedom  of  in- 
vestigation. The  third  was  tolerance  and  justice  toward 
those  thinking  otherwise. 

His  own  personal  convictions  did  not  seem  so  important 
to  him  as  the  fascinating  wealth  of  historical  investigation, 
and  his  tolerance  was  extended  more  liberally  toward  those 


153         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

of  other  beliefs  than  toward  those  of  his  own  faith.  He 
sought  the  explanation  of  history  in  subjective  passions  and 
motives,  and  in  the  strength  and  weaknesses  of  its  leading 
figures ;  and  thus  he  was  led  not  only  to  overestimate  the 
importance  of  personalities,  but  also  to  underestimate  the 
weight  and  might  of  that  general  and  nnconscious  progress 
of  principle  which  is  due  to  the  purpose  of  God.  Ambi- 
tion, love  of  authority,  eagerness  for  strife  and  agitation, 
lack  of  mildness,  want  of  toleration  and  absence  of  humility, 
were  the  (pialities  he  loved  to  find  in  the  chief  actors  in  any 
scene,  and  by  which  he  interpreted  the  current  of  events. 
Thus,  wdth  all  his  learning,  judgment  and  insight,  he  be- 
came an  exponent  of  pragmatism  in  its  lowest  and  most 
unworthy  sense.  He  expected  and  sought  for  the  meaner 
motives  in  analyzing  movements  with  which  his  own  mental 
structure  was  out  of  sympathy. 

He  is  so  important  to  us  in  this  discussion  because,  in  his 
mastery  of  the  original  sources  of  the  confessional  history 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  constantly  applied  these  prin- 
ciples and  motives,  and  has  thus  left  an  impression  not  only 
unsympathetic  but  unjust  to  the  great  confessional  charac- 
ters and  activities  of  the  Sixteenth  Century — results  that  are 
iuAvoven  to-day  yet  Avitli  our  comuion  historical  conceptions, 
and  from  whose  trannncls  it  is  difticult  to  be  freed. 

He  wrote  the  great  history  of  the  Rise,  the  Variations, 
and  the  Forming  of  our  Protestant  Conception  of  Doctrine 
fi'om  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  to  the  Introduction 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  six  volumes.  This  epoch- 
making  study  of  Protestant  Confessionalism  in  the  devel- 
opment of  its  history  and  doctrine  as  seen  by  a  pragmatic, 
unpartisan,  tolerant  and  enthusiastic  indifferentism,  pictures 
the  foundation  and  develojnnent  of  Reformation  doctrine 
less  as  an  unfolding  of  principle  than  as  an  attempt  of  the 
representative  men  of  the  age  to  influence  the  direction  of 
doctrine. 

In  all  the  controversies,  where  conflict  waxed  hot,  it  is. 


11 1  STORY    OF    THE    PRINCIPLE.  153 

in  Planck's  delineation,  rather  Lessing's  rationalistic  and 
comparative  search  after  truth  than  the  desire  to  find  and 
establish  some  trnth  that  is  felt.  Even  Schaff  says  of 
Planck's  (Icscli.  d.  I 'rot.  LcJirhegriffs  that  it  was  "without 
proper  appreciation  of  the  doctrinal  differences."*  The  fair 
comparative  presentation  of  both  sides  of  doctrine  is  more 
to  him  than  any  conclusion  as  to  either,  as  we  particularly 
see  in  his  pioneer  work  on  Symbolics,  "Historical  and  Com- 
parative Delineation  of  the  Dogmatic  Systems  of  our  Lead- 
ing Christian  Parties"  ("unserer  verschiedenen  christlichen 
Hauptparteicn"),  in  which  he  sought  to  do  away  with  all 
prepossession  for  any  doctrinal  system  and  to  increase  the 
respect  for  all  alike. 

This  is  the  essence  of  the  impartial  historico-comparative 
idea,  wliich  haunts  our  religious  teachings  both  elementary 
or  catechetical,  ami  a<l\anced  or  technical,  to  this  day;  and 
which  degenerates  faith  to  opinion,  and  counts  the  open 
mind  as  more  important  tiian  the  certain  heart.  If  faith 
be  less  than  knowledge,  if  confession  be  an  intellectual  snb- 
scription,  with  oi-  without  mental  reservation;  if  the  Chris- 
tian Church  is  not  contending  for  treasures,  but  for  logical 
terms;  if  witness  bearing  be  of  less  account  than  weighing 
witness — in  short,  if  principle  lives  chiefly  to  be  pitted 
against  principle,  and  conscience  is  to  be  evaporated  into 
definition,  then  Planck's  point  of  view  is  right;  but  even 
then  his  exaltation  of  unworthy  personal  motive  ultimately 
invites  to  skepticism  and  contempt.' 

Planck's  great  disciple  was  Marheinecke,  who  lectured 
upon  the  basis  of  Planck's  sketch  of  this  new  science,  and 
who  gave  it  the  name  ''Symbolics." 

*  Creeds  of   ChristemJom,   I,    p.   258. 

'  The  value  of  the  critical,  the  historical,  the  purely  comparative  principle, 
and  of  the  results  of  the  development  through  which  the  Church  has  passed 
under  their  influence  is  to  be  written  large.  Impartial  and  fearless  search  for 
the  exact  facts,  bold  and  objective  comparison,  constant  test  and  criticism, 
are  methods  to  be  prized  as  invaluable  and  as  having  been  bought  with  a 
price.  But  their  value  is  in  their  formal  strength,  and  not  in  their  substance. 
As  means,  and  where  they  do  not  set  themselves  up  as  the  end,  their 
services    are    to    be    heartily    welcomed. 


154         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESS  I  OXS. 

Marheinecke  attempted  to  eliminate  the  polemic  element 
from  the  varions  confessional  principles,  which  now  mani- 
fested their  main  strength  in  antagonistic  clashings,  and 
"fought  themselves  to  death ;"  and,  in  calmness,  to  prodnce 
a  historico-dogmatic  development  of  the  peculiar  LeJn-hegriff 
(doctrinal  concept)  of  each  of  the  "Parties"  in  the  Chris- 
tian Chnrcli,  on  the  basis  of  their  respective  symbols.  The 
work  was  never  completed,  but  he  carried  out  the  idea,  less 
extensively,  in  his  Latin  compendium,  "Instttutiones  sytn- 
hollca',  doctrinariun  Calhol.,  Protest.,  Socin.,  Eccl.  Gra'cce," 
etc.,  summam  et  discrimina  exhibentes,  in  nsum  scholarum 
scr.  Ph.  M.,  Berlin,  1812.  Thus  Marheinecke  sought  to 
exliibit  the  internal  unit  of  each  separate  denominational 
confession. 

It  remained  for  Winer  to  bring  the  comparative  method, 
in  its  application  to  the  science  of  Symbolics,  to  perfection. 
AVith  his  usual  analytic  and  synthetic  strength,  and  his  ob- 
jective method,  he  presented  to  view,  side  by  side,  in  tabu- 
lar form,  the  differences  existing  in  the  various  Confessions, 
under  the  dissection  of  a  skilful  comparative  analysis. 

And  here  lies  the  secret  of  Confessional  indifferentism. 
The  breath  of  life  had  departed  from  the  symbols,  and  the 
indetiiiable  inner  I'eserve  of  strength  had  disappeared.  Xo 
longer  devoted  to  any  Confessional  cause  with  heart  and 
soul,  the  theologians  no  longer  sought  to  exhibit  and  judge 
everything  in  the  light  of  a  believing  witness;  but  they 
attemjited,  from  a  standpoint  above  the  various  Confessions, 
to  i)rcs('nt  and  estimate  them  henceforth  as  historically  con- 
ditioned and,  in  this  respect,  equally  justified,  though  not 
equally  valuable,  developments  of  the  Christian  idea.  They 
described  them  as  step-like  approximations  to  a  still  higher 
ideal,  to  be  reached  comparatively,  and  by  the  process  of 
elimination  of  the  peculiarities  of  Christian  Teaching. 

Meantime  doubts  as  to  whether  symbols  were  necessary 
at  all  arose  even  as  early  as  Spener.  A  century  later  the 
obligation  to  adhere  to  the  symbol  was  interpreted  as  refer- 


HhSTORY    OF    THE   PRINCIPLE.  155 

ring  only  to  *'the  essentials ;"  and  most  scholars  viewed  the 
essential  matter  in  the  Confessions  as  very  small,  compared 
with  that  which  was  "merely  theological  and  not  directly 
religious,"  and,  therefore,  unessential.  Rationalism  caused 
the  subscription  to  degenerate  to  a  hypocritical  form,  in 
which  the  obligation  was  assumed,  but  not  regarded  as 
binding.  Thus  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  gave 
way  to  subjective  and  scientific  ''approximations  to  the 
Christian  idea,"  and  the  Protestant  Confessions,  in  Nine- 
teenth-Century language,  were  to  be  ''regarded  simply  as 
essays  toward  formulating  the  body  of  Christian  doctrine, 
which  may  be  tested  by  criticism  and  revised,"  and  none 
of  them  as  a  doctrinally  perfect  attest  of  a  "faith  which 
belongs  equally  to  our  fathers  and  to  us." 

As  we  of  a  living  Faith  have  learned  to  penetrate  through 
and  beyond  the  superficial  illumination  of  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  by  virtue  of  our  hold  on  the  Word  and  the  Faith ; 
so  we  of  a  living  Confession  should  abandon  the  lower  and 
comparative  point  of  view  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  which 
not  only  throws  the  outer  shell  aside,  but  leads  to  a  subjective 
approximation  toward  the  "perfect  Christian  idea,"  instead 
of  an  objective  salvation  and  a  real  justification  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

The  standpoint  of  true  Lutheranism  lies  not  in  the  field 
of  historical  investigation,  though  that  is  "a  good  and  useful 
outward  discipline,"  nor  in  the  field  of  comparative  distinc- 
tion and  estimate,  nor  in  the  discrimination  of  denomina- 
tional or  sectarian  peculiarities;  but  in  the  apprehension, 
assimilation,  affirmation,  and  application,  of  our  own  sym- 
bols, as  the  historical  channels  of  the  Word,  to  the  spiritual 
life  and  the  upbuilding  of  our  own  people  and  our  own 
Church. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE   COXFESSIONAL    USE   OF   THE   WORD 
"  SYMBOL." 

The  Meaning  of  the  Term — Its  Use  by  the  Church  Fathers — Its  Use  in  the  Re- 
formation and  ill  the  Book  of  Concord. 

THE  word  "S_)Tiibol,"  to  denote  the  Church's  formulated 
Confession  of  Eaith,  comes  to  lis  with  an  ancient 
history.  Though  Carpzov  will  not  admit  its  use  to 
antedate  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  while  it  is  true  that  the 
term  is  but  rarely  found  in  the  Church  Fathers,  the 
word  nevertheless  occurs  in  Cyprian'  about  the  middle  of 
the  Third  Century,  and  thenceforward  it  seems  to  have  been 
used,  at  least  occasionally,  as  a  title  given  to  the  Apostles' 
Creed. 

Ruffinus,  in  the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century,  employed 
it  as  the  title  of  his  work,  Expositio  in  synihulum  a  post  o- 
lormn;"  and  Bossius  justly  argues  from  this  and  from  the 
fact  that  Ruffinus  says  in  his  work,  "  symbolum  autem  hoc 
multis  et  justissimis  ex  causis  appellare  voluerunt,"  that  the 
earlier  use  of  the  word  must  have  been  general. 

Unlike  the  word  "Confession,"  whose  origin  and  lineage 
roots  itself  so  thoroughly  in  Scripture,  as  we  have  seen  in  a 
former  chapter,  the  word  "symbol"  is  not  Biblical,  but 
came  to  the  Church  from  the  classical  Greek  and  Latin.* 


'  Ep.   75  ad  Magnum. 

''  Cp.   Augustine,  De  Fide  et  Symbolo ;  Hilary,  De  Si/mbolo. 

'For  the  meaning  of  si/mhoJum,  in  classical  and  ecclesiastical  Latin  and 
Greek,  see  the  Lexicons  of  Stephanas,  Passow-Rost.  Forcellini,  and  Suicer ; 
and  Thesaitrus  eccl.  II,  10S4. 

156 


USAGE    OF   "SYMBOL."  157 

The  ecclesiastical  origin  of  the  term  is  disputed,  but  ety- 
mologically  the  word  is  derived  from  the  Greek  sumhalleiii, 
which  means,  to  throw  one  thing  alongside  of  another,  t<» 
compare,  to  talk  over  matters  together  and  come  to  a  united 
conclusioH,  an  agreement.  From  this  meaning  there  is  but 
a  step  to  the  further  signification,  denoting  a  sign  or  mark 
agreed  upon  before,  by  which  to  infer  or  recognize  any- 
thing. Thus  has  the  word  come  to  signify  a  badge  of  recog- 
nition. It  further  bore  the  meaning  "watchword,"  "for- 
mula in  the  mysteries,"  and  "a  contract  between  two  par- 
ties." * 

Finally,  the  term  came  to  designate  the  mark  or  sign  by 
which  the  connection  of  individuals  to  a  whole,  e.  g.,  a  cor- 
poration, or  association,  might  be  indicated.  Such  were  the 
badges  which  secured  admission  to  a  banquet,  "the  tessera 
miUtaris,"  the  flag,  and  the  password.  As  applied  to  reli- 
gion it  would  be  the  '^formula  credendormn,  tanquam  sig-' 
num,  quo  inter  se  credentes  dist'inguuntur." 

Cyprian  employed  this  term  to  designate  the  Baptismal 
Formula.  Euffinus  and  the  writers  of  the  Middle  Ages 
confine  it  to  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  but  in  the  Thirteenth  Cen- 
tury it  was  applied  to  the  additional  oecumenical  creeds  by 
Alexander  of  Hales   (A.  D'.  1230). 

The  term  was  not  used  in  the  early  days  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  neither  was  it  applied  to  Luther's  Catechisms,  nor  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession;  but  its  earliest  appearance  seems 
to  have  been  in  \Yittenberg,  in  1533,  in  the  prescribed  doc- 
tor's oath  in  the  new  statutes  of  the  University  of  Witten- 
berg. Luther,  five  years  later,  in  his  older  days  (1538), 
applied  it  to  the  Apostles'  and  the  Athanasian  Creeds,  and 
also  to  the  Te  Deum:  "Die  drey  Symbola  oder  Bekentnis 
des  Glaubens  Christi  inn  der  Kirchen  eintrechtiglich  ge- 
braucht,  Wittem.,   1538." 

Melanchthon  uses  the  term  in  his  "Corpus  doctrine."  In 
1576,  the  Preface  to  the  "Corpus  Julium"  characterized  the 


*  Miiller,  Symbol.   Biiclier.  Einleitung,  p.  XX. 

14 


158         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Augsburg  Confession  as  a  "well-grounded  Symbol  of  the 
Keformed  Churches."' 

A  fine  and,  for  us,  regulative  use  of  the  term  '^symbol" 
occurs  in  the  opening  paragraph  (the  second)  of  the  Pre- 
face of  the  Book  of  Concord,  where  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion itself  is  termed  a  symbol ;  not  primarily,  indeed,  but 
after  calling  it  a  ''Confession"  twice,  we  are  told  that  it  is 
confessed  as  the  ''Symbol,"  or  watchword,  "of  our  time  in 
the  contest  with  Papacy." 

That  the  chief  meaning  and  purpose  of  a  symbol,  as  it  is 
here  applied  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  is  not  that  of  con- 
tract, but  that  of  an  approved  witness  to  the  faith,  more 
spiritual  in  purpose,  and  wider  in  scope,  than  a  binding 
agreement  to  certain  doctrines,  is  to  be  seen  in  the  lan- 
guage and  spirit  of  those  who  put  forth  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, and  who  say  in  their  "Preface  to  the  Readers,  One 
and  All,  to  whom  they  Announce  and  Declare  their  Devotion 
and  Friendship,  combined  with  Willing  Service: — 

"A  brief  and  succinct  Confession  was  prepared  from  the 
Word  of  God,  which  was  offered  to  the  Emperor,  and  was 
presented  to  the  deputies,  and  finally  being  circulated  among 
all  men  professing  Christian  doctrine,  ami  tlius  in  the  en- 
tire world  was  diffused  everywhere,  and  began  to  be  current 
in  the  mouth  and  speech  of  all. 

"Afterwards  many  churches  and  schools  embraced  and 
defended  this  Confession,  as  a  symbol  of  the  prrsnit  iime 
in  regard  to  the  chief  articles  of  faith,  .  .  .  and  with  per- 
petual agreement  have  appealed  to  it  without  any  contro- 
versy and  doubt.  The  doctrine  comprised  in  it  which  they 
knew  both  to  be^  supported  by  firm  testimonies  of  Scripture, 


•  "  Welcher  Confession  Artikel  sind  jetziger  Zeit  als  ein  rechtes,  schones, 
reines,   wolgegriindtes   Symboluni   der   reformirten   Kirchen.'" 

Julius  was  duke  of  Brunswick  and  founder  of  the  University  of  Helmstedt. 
He  took  offense  at  Cliemnitz's  criticism  of  him  when  he  permitted  his  sou 
to  become  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  excluded  the  Formula  of 
Concord  from  his  Corpus  doctrinsp.  The  Julian  Corpus  contains  the  three 
oecumenical  symbols,  the  Augsburg  Confession  printed  in  1531,  the  Apology, 
the  Sehmalkald  Articles,  and  the  two  Catechisms  of  Luther — everything  but 
the  Formula. 


USAGE    OF   "SYMBOL."  150 

and  to  be  approved  by  the  ancient  and  received  symbols, 
they  have  also  constantly  judged  to  be  the  only  and  per- 
petual consensus  of  the  truly  believing  Church,  which  was 
formerly  defended  against  manifold  heresies  and  errors." 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  here  declared  to  be  a  con- 
fession which  has  become  the  symbol,  or  confessional  stand- 
ard, of  the  hour,  to  which  all  parties  have  agreed  to  appeal 
(not  an  appeal  which  all  parties  have  agreed  to  make),  and 
which  contains  the  very  doctrine  found  in  the  old  tried 
symbols,  which  are  the  acknowledged  consensus  of  all  the 
Churches  in  their  conflict  with  all  kinds  of  sects ;  and  have 
appealed  to  it  with  Christian  unanimity,  and  without  any 
controversy  and  doubt.  ^loreover,  they  have  steadily  held 
fast  to  the  doctrine  apprehended  in  it,  which  is  well  grounded 
in  the  divine  Scripture,  and  is  presented  in  brief  compass 
in  the  old,  tried  symbols  as  the  one  old  consensus  accredited 
by  the  churches  unanimously  teaching  the  true  doctrine,  and 
acknowledged  in  repeated  conflicts  against  heresy. 

The  "consensus"  here  is  their  agreement  in  doctrine, 
rather  than  an  agreement  to  agree  in  doctrine.  Tlie  Church, 
when  using  the  word  '^symbol,"  used  it  in  the  sense  not  of 
a  contract  agreed  upon,  but  of  a  Confession  duly  accredited 
as  in  agreement  with  Scripture. 

The  same  conclusion  is  reached  in  considering  the  usage 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  defines  symlxds  as  ''kurtze 
runde  Bekei'nntnisse"  {"brief,  iiJa'tn  Confessions").  The 
definition  occurs  in  the  second  part  of  the  introduction  to 
the  Epitome:  "And  since  immediately  after  the  time  of 
the  Apostles,  and  even  during  their  lives,  inroads  were  made 
by  false  teachers  and  heretics;  and  si/nihoJs,  i.  e.,  brief. 
plain  confessiotis,  were  set  up  against  them  in  the  early 
Church,  and  were  held  to  be  the  one  common  Christian 
Faith  and  the  Confession  of  the  true  and  orthodox  Churches, 
namely,  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Xicene  Creed,  and  the 
Athanasian  Creed :  we  confess  them  as  binding  upon  us,  and 
herewith  reject  all  heresies  and  dogmas,  w^hich  were  intro- 


160         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

duced  into  the  Clnircli  of  God  contrary  to  their  teachings." 

Here,  indeed,  matters  are  clearly  defined.  Symbols  are 
brief,  plain  Confessions  set  up  (the  setting  up  is  a  subordi- 
nate idea,  and  its  mode  and  forms  are  not  expressed)  against 
the  heresies  of  false  teachers,  and  held  to  by  the  true 
Churches  as  the  one  common  Christian  Faith,  and  as  their 
Confession  of  it. 

Finally,  the  whole,  true,  spiritual,  churchly  and  confes- 
sional sense  of  a  symbol  as  conceived  by  our  fathers  and 
held  to  in  the  Confessions  is  characterized  most  amply  in 
the  Preface  to  the  Solid  Declaration  of  the  Formula,  where 
they  tell  us: — 

"From  our  inmost  hearts  we  herewith  once  again  confess 
this  Christian  Augsburg  Confession,  which  is  so  thoroughly 
grounded  in  God's  ^Vord.  We  abide  by  the  simple,  clear 
and  plain  meaning  that  its  words  convey,  and  regard  it  in 
all  respects  as  a  Christian  symbol,  which  at  the  present  time 
Christians  sJiould  receive  next  to  God's  ^Vord,  just  as  in 
former  times,  when  great  controversies  arose  in  the  Church 
of  God,  symbols  and  confessions  were  composed,  which  puj^e 
teachers  and  hearers  confessed  with  heart  and  mouth.  We 
int(>nd  also,  by  the  grace  of  the  Almighty,  to  faithfully  abide 
until  our  end   by  this  Christian  Confession." 

And  in  the  part  of  the  Preface  on  the  "comprehensive 
summary,  foundation,  rule  and  standard,"  they  tell  us : 
"Since  it  is  necessary,  for  thorough  and  permanent  unity, 
above  all  to  have  a  comjiletely  approved  compendium  in 
which  the  concifie  and  common  doctrines  confessed  by  the 
Churches  of  the  true  Christian  relio-ion  are  brouiiht  tosrether 
out  of  God's  Word,  just  as  the  ancient  Church  always  had 
its  fixed  symbols  for  this  use ;  and  as  this  authority  should 
not  be  attached  to  private  writings,  but  to  such  books  as 
have  been  composed,  approved  and  received  in  the  name 
of  the  Churches  who  acknowledge  one  doctrine  and  reli- 
gion ;  we  have  declared  to  one  another  with  heart  and  mouth 
that  we  will  neither  make  nor  receive  any  separate  or  new 


USAGE    OF    -'SYMBOL."  IGl 

confession  of  our  faith,  Lut  acknowledge  as  confessional  the 
public  common  writings  which  always  and  everywhere  were 
received  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
as  such  si/tnhols  or  puhJic  confcsKwns,  before  the  dissensions 
arose  among  those  who  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession/' 
etc. 

The  w^ord  ^'symbol,"  then,  as  used  in  the  Symbolical  Books 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  is  e(iuiva]ent  to  A  Public  Confes- 
sion of  the  Fuilli,  made  with  heart  and  mouth,  and  which, 
in  the  course  of  events,  and  after  passing  through  the  tests 
of  history  and  time,  has  received  the  stamp  of  churchly 
approval  and  adoption  as  in  harmony  with  the  one  old  con- 
sensus of  the  true  and  faithful  doctrine,  and  has  become 
an  external  sign  and  bond  of  their  fellowship. 

S^Tiibols  are  old,*  tested  and  approved  confessions  of  the 
faith,  in  shortest  form,  used  as  a  confessional  formulary, 
while  Symbolical  Writings  are  public,  common  writings, 
"publica  et  approbata  scripta,"  not  private  writings  (''Pri- 
vatschriften''),  but  books  that  have  been  approved  and  ac- 
cepted '"  in  the  name  of  the  Churches  wdiich  confess  one  doc- 
trine and  religion,''  and  wdiich  "'  publicly  delineate,  ground 
and  defend  the  doctrine  of  the  Cliurch."  ' 

As  far  as  the  Church  is  necessary,  declares  Sartorius,  so 
far  does  there  exist  a  necessity  for  the  Symbol  as  the  con- 
centrated expression  of  its  common  faith,  and  for  the  Con- 
fession as  a  manifestation  of  its  general  religious  conscious- 
ness. 

''The  Symbol,"  says  Sartorius,  "  is  no  law — no  prescription 
of  the  faith — but  a  confession — a  testimony  of  it — as  indi- 
cated in  its  form.  It  does  not  come  in  the  imperative  crede, 
but  in  the  indicative  credo.  'Credo  '  begins  the  first,  the 
Apostles'  Creed ;  and  the  last,  the  Formula  of  Concord,  has 
only  translated  the  singular  into  the  plural,  and  shows  its 
interior  connection  with  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  and  follows 


*  "  Bewahrten,   alten   Symbolis." 
'MuUer,  EinJeit.,  p.  XXII. 


163         THE    LI  THE  Ely    COXFESSIOXS. 

ill   the   oft-reeurriug   fonii,    'Cicdiiitus,   conjilonur   r/    doce- 
mus/  " 

''Every  preacher,''  coiitiiiiies  Sartoriiis,  "is  already  a  con- 
fessor; and  as  no  preacher  is  a  self-constituted  confessor,  the 
very  nature  of  the  office  implies  that  there  must  be  a  common 
Confession — to  which  he  declares  himself  as  a  fclloiu-conies- 
sor,  both  when  he  is  invested  with  his  office,  and  in  the  ful- 
filment of  its  duties.  The  ministry  of  the  Church  pre- 
supposes the  fellowship  of  a  Confession  or  a  Sijmbol." 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

THE   LUTHERAN   CO.N^FESSIOX. 

Was  It  Born  at  Augsburg? — Luther  the  Great  Living  Confession  of  His  Church — 
The  Reasons  Why  He  was  the  Church's  Living  Confession — His  Relation  to 
External  Confessional  Statements — The  Weakness  of  a  Living  Witness. 

LUTHER  was  liiniself  the  great  Living  Confession  of  bis 
Cluircli  and  day.  Before  the  political  necessity  of  a 
formal  touch  with  the  empire  and  the  enter  world  had  come 
to  a  focns  at  Angsbnrg,  and,  also  afterwards,  Luther  was,  in 
his  own  personality,  the  greatest  promulgator,  definer  and 
defender  of  tlie  Church's  Faith.  It  was  he  who  determined 
and  decided  and  upheld  the  doctrine.  He  not  only  broke 
the  path,  but  he  built  the  road,  while  others  followed, 
smoothing  the  surface  and  adjusting  the  side  approaches. 
It  M'as  his  discoveries,  his  utterances,  his  constructions,  in 
university  lectures  to  students,  in  numerous  sermons,  and 
still  more  numerous  letters,  in  colloquies  and  disputations, 
with  friends  within  and  foes  without,  in  advice  and  direc- 
tions, in  books  and  treatises,  in  the  publication  of  cate- 
chisms and  Scriptures,  tliat  made  him  the  great  rediscov- 
erer  and  recoverer  of  and,  next  after  Paul,  the  greatest 
Living  Witness  to  the  Faith. 

And  the  cause  for  this  is  not  hidden.  Lnther's  daily, 
direct  and  lifelong  contact  with  the  Scriptures,  from  which 
he  drew  all  his  strength,  and  which  furnished  him  with  all 
the  doctrine,  and  which,  through  his  agency,  reacted  with 
instant  and  prevailing  force  among  the  Lutheran  Churches, 
made  him  the  one  Living  Witness,  the  one  Living  Confes- 

163 


164         THE    LUTHERAN    COXFESSIONS. 

sion  of  the  Church  of  the  day.  lie  lived  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  in  nothing  else.  He  translated  them,  he  applied  them 
to  every  sphere.  They  were  to  him,  in  his  days  and  his 
nights  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  life.  They  were  sufficient ; 
and  he  cut  off  every  human  and  civilizing  source  of  power. 
To  him  the  wisdom  of  the  ancients,  the  classics,  the  philoso- 
phy of  Aristotle,  the  logic  of  the  scholastics,  the  councils 
and  decisions  of  the  Church,  the  ambitions  in  ecclesiastical 
politics,  the  teachings  of  other  great  scholars  of  his  age,  the 
adjustments  of  scholarship  to  the  times — these  were  almost 
absolutely  nothing.  But  the  saving  doctrine  of  Scripture  in 
Christ,  which  ever  came  promptly  to  the  surface  in  bold 
confession, — it,  to  him,  was  everything. 

This  explains  Luther's  low  estimate  of  the  mere  external 
confessional  statement,  elaborated  in  complete  and  cautious 
phrase.  To  him,  the  doctrinal  reality  itself  was  more  than 
the  phrase.  And  he  had  little  appreciation  for  that  outer' 
adjustment  in  the  forms  of  language  and  in  tlie  terms  of 
mutual  avowal,  which  did  not  spring  up  spontaneously 
from  the  inner  doctrinal  reality.  Therefore,  also,  he  had 
little  patience — though  he  often  showed  much  patience — 
with  any  program  of  external  mediation  and  conciliation. 
The  inner  spirit  of  the  AVord,  Avhich  crystallized  into  clear 
and  definite  doctrine,  was  everything.  For  him  no  exter- 
nally elaborated  Confessions  of  the  Church  were  sufficient. 
The  Scripture  itself  was  the  rule — not  in  the  sense  in  which 
modern  theologians  who  dislike  confessionalism,  appeal  from 
the  Confessions  to  the  Scriptures.  With  these  it  is  often 
the  desire  to  get  rid  of  doctrine,  and  of  its  definite  and  em- 
phatic confession.  To  him,  Confessions  were  insufficient, 
because  no  Confession  was  sufficiently  full  of  doctrine,  nor 
could  be  made  to  express  the  sharp  and  clear  distinctiveness 
of  the  doctrine,  and  the  complete  sum  of  doctrine  with  suffi- 
cient fulness.  Confessions  to  him  are  inadequate,  not  be- 
cause they  go  too  far,  but  because  they  cannot  and  do  not 
go  far  enough  : — 


LUTHER    THE    COXFESSOR.  165 

''There  is  no  C^onncil  or  Father/'  he  savs,  ''in  whom  we 
can  find  or  from  which  we  can  learn  the  entire  Christian 
doctrine.  That  of  Xice  treats  only  of  the  fact  that  Christ 
is  true  God ;  that  of  Constantinople,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God ;  that  of  Ephesus,  that  Christ  is  not  two  persons,  but 
one;  that  of  Chalcedon,  that  Christ  has  not  one,  but  two  na- 
tures. These  are  the  four  chief  councils,  and  yet  they  have 
only  these  four  doctrines.  Nevertheless,  this  is  not  the 
Christian  Faith.  ...  In  short,  put  all  the  Councils  and  all 
the  Fatliers  tosrether,  and  even  then  you  carmot  derive  from 
them  tlie  entire  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Faith.  If  the 
Holy  S(;riptures  were  not  retained,  the  Church  would  not  long 
abide  by  the  Councils  or  the  Fathers.'" 

But  Luther  does  not  allow  sufficiently  for  God's  gradual 
unfolding  of  His  plan  in  liistory,  through  which  each  age  is 
allotted  some  portion  of  tlie  problem  to  conquer  and  some 
sheaf  of  the  fruit  to  reap.  The  "doctrine  of  the  Church 
does  not,"  says  Plitt,  'in  its  entire  extent,  originate  all 
at  once.  The  Clmrch  is  immediately  certain  of  her  salva- 
tion, \\lnch  is  decided  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  her 
living  Head.  But  Jesus  Christ  is  an  historical  person,  the 
goal  of  a  series  of  facts  of  salvation  tending  towards  Him- 
self, and  the  beginning  of  another  series  arising  within  Him- 
self. It  is  this  rich  diversity  included  in  that  living  unity 
which  should  become  the  subject  of  the  Church's  knowl- 
edge, and  which  she  should  clotlie  in  expressions  designating 
its  true  nature. 

''The  knowledge  of  these  manifold  facts  is  only  very  grad- 
ually attained.  ISTo  so-called  accident,  but  inner  necessity, 
determines  the  succession  in  which  the  treatment  of  the 
separate  parts  has  been  undertaken  by  the  Church.  Neither 
has  the  Cliureli  been  impelled  and  led  by  any  inner  arbitrari- 
ness or  the  natural  desire  for  knowledge.  On  the  contrary, 
she  has  waited,  until  through  her  history,  which  is  guided. 


'  Erlanyen,    25.    261. 


166         THE   LITHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

by  God,  a  definite  call  has  reached  her ;  she  has  constantly 
fulfilled  the  task  which  Grod  Himself  points  out  to  her, 
througli  her  development,  which  is  controlled  by  His  Spirit."* 

Though  Luther  was  the  Living  Confession  of  the  Faith, 
Luther  himself,  who  was  more  powerful  in  promulgating 
and  determining,  if  not  in  actually  defining  and  fixing  the 
nature  of  the  Faith,  than  even  the  Augsburg  Confession 
itself  (which  was  not  formative,  but  a  statement  ex  eventu)  ; 
and  who  declared  the  insuificiency  of  all  the  oecumenical 
Confessions,  because  of  their  incompleteness — this  Living 
Confession  could  not  forever  remain  in  the  Church.  With 
his  personal  removal,  the  Church  would  lose  its  Living  Con- 
fession; and  would  be  obliged  to  fall  back  and  lean  upon 
leaders  who  were  unlike  him  in  spirit  and  in  his  simple 
dependency  on  Scripture,  but  who  drew  strength  also  from 
humanistic  sources  and  from  the  written  statements  which, 
like  those  in  every  great  age  of  the  Church,  are  left  for  the 
guidance  of  the  future.  Would  the  Church  be  able  to  con- 
fess, after  its  Living  Confession  was  gone  ? 

The  strength  of  a  Living  Witness  is  also  always  his  weak- 
ness. Life  is  growth.  It  implies  development.  Develop- 
ment cannot  take  place  without  change,  and  change  intro- 
duces uncertainty.  But  the  necessities  of  a  Confession  re- 
quire that  it  state  the  doctrine  in  such  a  way  that  changes 
will  not  afi"ect  it.  Otherwise  its  usefulness  as  a  foundation 
and  an  anchor  for  the  Church  are  gone.  If  the  Confession 
he  always  changing,  as  is  the  individual  mind,  or  as  is  his- 
tory itself,  it  is  of  little  service.  At  best,  it  is  but  an  inter- 
mediary between  the  Scripture  and  the  Church,  fixing  for 
the  Church,  amid  the  shifting  waves  and  sands  of  time,  a 
clear  sight  of  the  Scripture.  If  it  itself  be  no  better  than 
the  moving  waves  around  it,  its  one  regulative  and  health- 
ful function  largely  disappears. 

Therefore  the  utterances  of  Luther,  since  his  experience 


Trans,   in  Jacobs,  Book  //  Concord,  II,  pp.  312,   313. 


LUTHER    THE    CONFESSOR.  167 

of  Scripture  was  constantly  changing  and  developing,  are 
not  of  final  confessional  value,  except  where  they  have  Ixx-n 
confirmed  by  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles.  Luther  writes 
from  the  very  centre  of  the  Scripture,  but  throws  the  force  of 
the  doctrine  into  the  temper  of  a  single  situation  and  into  the 
time  of  a  single  moment.  He  speaks  without  qualification, 
and  his  growth,  like  that  of  every  other  great  student,  is  a 
record  of  change,  and  at  times  of  inconsistency.  Yet,  with 
all  this  change,  he  so  powerfully  and  closely  reflected  Scrip- 
ture that  he  was  practically  recognized  as  the  personal  con- 
fessional centre  of  the  Church  until  his  death. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

~.:.^-      THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  OEIGIX  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  GOXFESSIOX. 
KOLDE'S    IXTEODUCTIOX. 

The  Emperor — The  Torgau  Articles — The  Elector  at  Coburg — The  Beginnings  of 
the  Confession — What  Luther  said  on  May  lllh — The  Saxon  Draft — The  Other 
Estates  Admitted — Melanchthon's  Negotiation — Delivery  of  the  Confession — 
Luther  and  the  Confession. 

THE  Diet  of  Spires,  in  tlie  Spring  of  1520,  the  attempt  of 
the  Konian  party  to  overthrow  tlie  Evangelical  side  bv  a 
majority  vote,  and  the  Evangelical  protest  against  this  pro- 
cedure, constituted  an  important  landmark  in  the  history 
of  the  Evangelical  Church  as  it  sprang  into  being.  A  closer 
union  was  more  than  ever  imperative.  The  consciousness  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  threatening  danger  led  even  in  Spires 
to  the  attempt  to  bridge  over  the  internal  diiferences  in  the 
sacramentarian  question,  and  to  ])ave  the  way  to  a  protective 
federation  of  the  leading  Evangelical  estates.  Of  necessity 
this  care  had  to  increase,  when,  notwithstanding  the  Marburg 
Colloquium  in  the  first  days  of  October  and  the  divers  diplo- 
matic negotiations  between  the  Evangelical  estates,  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  was  attained,  and  the  rumor  gained 
currency  as  early  as  the  Fall  of  ir»20,  that  the  Emperor 
would  come  to  Germany  to  hold  a  diet  in  person. 

And  Charles  V.  was  really  on  the  way  to  Germany! 
"Without  the  presence  of  the  German  princes  he  had  himself 
croNnied  as  emperor  in  Bologna,  February  24th,  l.>>0,  by 
Pope  Clement   NTT.      The  infoi-matirin   received   concerning 

168 


ORIGIS    OF    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.  169 

the  relations  between  the  two  supreme  powers  gave  little  rea- 
son to  expect  any  good  for  the  Evangelical  cause.  Indeed, 
not  a  few  among  the  opponents  looked  forward  to  the  Em- 
peror's coming  with  rejoicing,  and  hailed  him  as  the  longed- 
for  deliverer  and  ''avenger."' 

But  the  official  document  in  wliich  the  Emperor  from  Bo- 
logna on  January  21st  gave  invitations  to  another  diet  that 
was  to  convene  April  Sth  in  Augsburg,  luid  an  unexpectedly 
peaceful  setting.  Besides  the  re})ulsing  of  the  Turkish  peril, 
the  princi])al  reason  was  stated  thus: — "How  the  error  and 
schism  in  the  holy  faith  and  the  Christian  religion  might  be 
discussed  and  settled."  The  Emperor  promised  and  ad- 
monished "to  allay  controversy,  to  abandon  dislikes,  to  com- 
mit to  the  Saviour  all  error,  and  to  use  all  diligence  in  hear- 
ing, understanding  and  weighing  the  opinion,  thought  and 
belief  of  every  one  in  love  and  clemency,  bring  all  to  one 
harmonious  Christian  truth,  and  to  settle  all  things  which 
are  not  right  on  either  side,  when  thus  presented  and  dis- 
cussed, and  dispose  of  them."* 

It  is  true,  not  all  dared  to  believe  in  the  peaceful  inten- 
tions of  the  Emperor.  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hessen,  had 
small  inclination  to  attend  the  Diet,  and  still  less  did  the 
south  German  cities  trust  the  matter.  Nuremberg,  cer- 
tainly, which  always  strove  to  maintain  friendly  relations 
to  the  Emperor,  hoped  for  the  best,  and  so  did  Elector  John 
of  Saxony,  at  whose  court  in  Torgau  the  document  had  been 
received  on  March  lltli.  His  counsellors  advised  him  to  at- 
tend the  Diet  in  person,  for  the  sake  of  being  invested  with 
the  electorate,  and  because  the  matter  of  religion  was  to  be 
discussed,  and,  therefore,  this  Diet  would  take  the  place  of 
a  council  or  national  council.  His  chancellor,  Dr.  Gre- 
gorius  Briick  (Pontanus),  recommended,  since,  according 
to  the  summons,  "the  opinion  and  thought  of  every  one  was 


'  Cf.  The  Dithyrambus  of  the  Dom.  Job.  Dietenberger  in  W  e  d  e  w  e  r  ,  Job. 
Dietenberger,  Freiburg,  1888,  p.  120  sq.,  and  Luther  in  Enders,  Luthers 
Briefwecbsel,  VII,  216. 

^Forstemann,   Urkundenbuch,  I,   7  sq. 


1?0         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

to  be  heard,"  "that  such  opinion  upon  which  our  side  has 
heretofore  stood  and  insisted,  be  properly  drawn  up  in  a  doc- 
ument with  thorough  proof  from  the  divine  Scriptures,  so 
that  it  may  be  presented  to  the  estates  in  writings  in  case 
the  estates  would  not  be  permitted  to  let  the  preachers  pre- 
sent these  matters  in  the  discussions."' 

Thereupon,  on  March  14th,  a  call  was  sent  to  Luther,  Jus- 
tus Jonas,  John  Ijugenhagcn  aud  Melanclithon,  since  the  Diet 
might  take  the  place  of  a  council  or  national  assembly,  to 
take  prompt  counsel  on  all  articles  '"  concerning  Avhich  there 
is  a  reported  dissension,  both  in  doctrine  and  in  external 
ecclesiastical  usages  and  ceremonies,"  and  to  render  a  per- 
sonal report  on  the  same  by  March  20tli.  But,  although  the 
matter  was  hurried  as  much  as  possible,  and  Luther  in  the 
night  of  the  same  14th  of  March,  recalled  Jonas,  who  was 
absent  on  visitations,  it  required  a  second  call,  on  March 
21st,*  and  the  result  of  the  Wittenberg  discussions  was  prob- 
ably not  presented  to  the  Elector  in  Torgau  until  March  STth." 

Among  the  many  extant  writings  and  opinions  of  the 
Wittenberg  theologians  of  that  time,  which  directly  or  indi- 
rectly refer  to  what  was  to  be  treated  at  the  approaching 
Diet,  there  is  none  entitled  '"  Torgau  Articles,"  or  "  Opin- 
ion presented  at  Torgau,''  but  all  indications  point  to  the 
fact  that  we  must  look  for  the  much-sought  ''  Torgau  Arti- 
cles" in  an  opinion  composed  by  Melanchthon,  which  the 
Elector  took  to  Augsburg  as  an  important  document,  and 
which  })lainly  forms  the  basis  of  the  second  part  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.* 


'Korstemann,  Urkundenbuch,   II,   39   sq. 
•Enders   VII,    253.    C.   R.   II,    33. 

*  At  least  we  know  from  Melanchthon'.s  letters  to  Myconius,  C.  R.  11,  33, 
that  the  former  was  in  Torgau  on  Mch.  2Tlh,  while  Luther's  presence,  since 
be  knows  only  by  hearsay  of  the  errors  of  John  Companus,  concerning  which 
the  discussion  was  then  waged    (  Enders  VII,   288   sq.),   is  very   unlikely. 

*  While  Ed.  Engelhardt,  Die  innere  Genesis  u.  d.  Zusammenhang  der 
Marburger,  Schwabacher  u.  Torsauer  Artikel.  sowie  der  Augsburg.  Conf.  in 
Ztschr.  I'iir  histor.  Theol.  1865.  pp.  515-029,  was  on  the  right  road.  Th. 
Brieger  in  "  Kirchengesoh.  Studien  "  (Leipzig.  1888),  p.  2fi9  sqq..  where 
the  former  discoveries   arc   appreciated,  has   made   it  highly   probable  that  the 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   M  GUST  ANA.  171 

The  fact  that,  contrary  to  the  Elector's  demands  to  report 
on  doctrine  and  ceremonies,  it  treats  only  of  the  latter,  is 
explained  by  the  introductory  statements,  according  to  which, 
as  the  opponents  themselves  admitted,  the  doctrine  preached 
in  the  electoral  territory  'Svas  Christian  and  comforting, 
and  right  in  itself,"  and  the  "controversy  had  arisen  princi- 
pally on  account  of  several  abuses  that  had  arisen  through 
human  doctrine  and  teaching."  Hence  it  was  confined  to 
presenting  the  reasons  for  abolishing  those  abuses,  but  at 
the  close  it  was  stated  in  case  "it  is  desired  to  know  what 
else  my  most  clement  lord  has  preached,  articles  may  be 
presented  in  which  the  whole  Christian  doctrine  is  prop- 
erly arranged,  so  that  it  may  be  seen  that  my  most  clement 
lord  lujs  suffered  no  heretical  doctrine;  but  has  had  the  holy 
gospel  of  our  Lord  Christ  preached  in  its  utmost  purity." 
At  the  same  time  a  further  recasting  of  this  opinion,  which 
was  originally  intended  only  for  the  Elector  for  official 
copy  in  Augsburg,  and  quickly  jotted  down,  was  planned 
from  the  outset,  for  after  the  first  paragraph  we  find  the 
remark:  "In  banc  sententiani  prodest  proponere  praefacio- 
nem  longam  ac  rhetoricam." 

On  April  ord  Luther,  ]\relanelithon  and  Jonas  left  Witten- 
berg, for,  as  it  was  stated  in  the  first  call  on  March  14th,  the\ 
Avere  to  accompany  the  Elector  at  least  as  far  as  Coburg, 
where  they  should  learn  "what  should  be  done  at  the  Diet 
at  Augsburg  concerning  the  presentation  of  every  one's  opin- 
ion and  thought,"  and  whether  the  preachers  were  to  be 
admitted.'  On  the  way  George  Spalatin,  from  Altenburg, 
John  Agricola,  from  Eisleben,  and  Kaspar  Aquila,  from 
Saalfeld,  joined  the  retinue  of  the  Elector.  On  April  15th, 
Good  Eriday,  they  reached  the  boundary  of  the  electoral  ter- 


cssay  published  by  Forstemann,  I,  68-84,  is  the  document  which 
(according  to  Forstemann,  I,  138)  was  taken  to  Augsburg  under  the  title  : 
"  Der  gelerten  zu  Wittemberg  bedenken,"  etc.,  and  must  be  regarded  as  the 
sought-for  "  Torgau  Articles."  Under  this  caption,  with  the  articles  numbered, 
see  Th.   K  o  1  d  e  ,   D.   Augsburgische  Konfess.   p.   128   sqq. 

'Forstemann,   I,   44. 


173         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ritorj  in  Coburg,  and  the  Elector  determined  to  remain 
here  until  after  the  Easter  holidays,  awaiting  further  tidings 
concerning  the  coming  of  the  Emperor.  Since  the  original 
plan,  so  much  desired  abroad,  to  take  Luther  along  to  Augs- 
burg,* had  to  be  abandoned  on  account  of  the  imperial  ban 
resting  on  him,  the  Elector  desired  to  leave  the  Reformer 
in  i^uremberg  during  the  Diet,  so  as  to  have  him  at  least 
in  a  safe  place  and  as  near  as  possible.  But  the  negotiations 
in  regard  to  this  matter  failed,  since  the  Nuremberg  Coun- 
cil, in  its  timidity  and  its  anxious  care  to  retain  the  favor 
of  the  Emperor,  would  not  even  venture  to  assure  Luther 
of  a  free  passage."  Hence,  on  April  23rd,  he  Avas  brouglit  to 
the  fortress  of  Coburg,  while  the  Elector  journeyed  onward 
with  his  retinue,  and  reached  Augsburg  on  ^lay  2nd. 

^Yllile  still  in  Coburg,  Melanchthon  had  bogun  to  put  in 
good  style  the  Torgau  Articles,  the  "Apology "  to  be  pre- 
sented at  the  Diet,  and  to  write  an  introduction"  to  the 
same,  all  with  the  idea  that  notliing  more  would  need  to  be 
done  than  to  defend  the  abolition  of  the  Roman  abuses.  But 
he  had  hardly  arrived  in  Augsburg  when  he  became  con- 
vinced that  he  could  not  thus  limit  himself.  Before  they 
had  received  the  summons  to  the  Diet,  and  on  the  mere  in- 
formation that  the  Emperor  would  have  the  religious  con- 
troversy discussed  at  a  diet,  (li(>  Bavarian  dukes,  in  a  call 
dated  February  lOth,  had  l)i(h!(n  the  theological  faculty  at 
Ingolstadt  to  arrange  in  an  extract  all  articles  that  had 
been  preached  by  Luther  for  the  last  twelve  years,  and  to 
show  their  discrepancy  Avith  the  true  Christian  faith,  to- 
gether with  the  way  in  which  they  could  most  successfully  be 


*  Briick  in  K  6  r  s  t  e  m  a  n  n  ,  Archiv.,  p.  17:  "Several  parties  who  wern 
interested  in  the  matter  solicited  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  have  his  electoral 
highness  bring  Dr.  Luther  along  to  Aiigsb.  on  account  of  the  great  importance 
of  the  matter,  as  the  one  whom  God  had  given  understanding  before  all 
others,"  etc. 

•  Concerning  the  transactions  with  reference  to  Luther's  stay  in  Nuremberg, 
cf.  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Beitrage  zur  Ref.  Gesch.  in  "  Kirchengesch.  Studien," 
dedicated  to  Reuter,  Leipzig,   1SS8,  p.   251   sqq. 

"  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  May  4th,  C.  R.  II,  39  : — "  I  made  the  introduction 
of  our  apology  somewhat  more  rhetorical,  quam   Coburgi  scripseram. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    A  LG  C S  T A  X A  .  173 

refuted,  so  that  the  dukes  might  have  this  document  to  hand 
in  ease  of  need." 

This  must  have  been  tlie  external  oeeasiun  fur  John  Eck 
of  Ingolstadt,  to  issue  a  writing  dedicated  to  the  Emperor, 
in  which  he  collected  i()4  ait  ides  of  "those  who  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  Church."  fu  these  he  first  repeats  the  theses 
of  Lutlier  condfuuKd  in  the  papal  bull,  also  Eck's  theses 
for  tl)e  disputations  at  I>cipzig,  Baden  arid  Bern,  and  then 
passages  from  the  writings  of  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Zwingli 
and  Carlstadt,  wrenched  from  their  context  and  placed  under 
certain  rubrics  and  put  in  line  with  statements  of  Anabap- 
tists, such  as  .Tolin  Denk,  Ilubmeyer  and  others.  At  the 
same  time  tlie  author  offered  to  prove  in  open  disputation 
before  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  that  the  theses  quoted  were 
unchristian." 

Xow,  there  could  be  no  doubt  tliat  tlie  writing  of  defence 
must  also  contain  articles  of  doctrine,  and  for  this  reason, 
and  because  the  Emperor  would  have  no  time  to  listen  to 
long  dissertations,  Melanchthon  determined  to  incorporate 
articles  of  doctrine,  and  thus  to  give  the  whole  more  of  the 
character  of  a  co?ifession.'^  Thus  the  apology  became  a  con- 
fession of  faith,  and  at  least  externally  the  defence  of  the 
abolition  of  abuses  was  moved  to  the  second  place. 

The  ''  .Marlnirg  Articles"  agreed  to  on  October  tth,  1520, 
at  the  close  of  the  colloquium,  and  the  articles  afterward 
called  ^'Schwabach  Articles,""  which  were  mainly  com- 
posed by  Luther,  and  which  were  intended  for  a  common 


"V.  A.  W  !  n  t  r  r  ,  Gesch.  d.  Schicksalo  d.  ev.  Lehre  in  und  durch  Bayern 
bewirkt,  Munich,  1809,  I,  269. 

^  Sub  dom.  Jhesu  et  Mariae  patrocinio.  Articulos  404.  partim  ad  disputa- 
tiones,  Lips.,  Bad.,  et  Bern,  attinente.s,  etc.  Ingolstadii  impressum,  1530. 
quarto. 

'3  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  May  11th:  "I  send  you  our  apology,  which  is 
more  properly  a  confession.  The  Emperor  does  not  care  to  listen  to  pro- 
longed discussions,  but  still  I  said  what  I  thought  would  either  profit  most 
or  be  most  becoming.  With  this  purpose  in  mind  I  composed  nearly  all  the 
articles  of  faith.  As  Eck  composed  the  most  diabolical  slanders  against  us  I 
■wished   to  oppose  a   remedy  to  them."-^C.   R.   II,   45. 

"  The  Marburg  and  Schwabach  Articles  in  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  D.  Augs.  Konf., 
p.  119  sq.  and  123  sq.  Of.  in  the  same.  Der  Tag  von  Schleiz  u.  d.  Entstehung 
d.  Schwab.  Art.  in  Beitrage  zur  Ref.  Gesch.  Gotha,  1896,  p.  94,  sqq. 

15 


in         TEE    LUrilEUAX    CONFESSIONS. 

basis  of  faith  for  the  political  federation  of  the  evangelical 
estates,  but  which  on  account  of  their  specifically  Wittenberg 
coloring  were  not  adopted  by  the  Highland  theologians  at 
the  Schwabach  convention  on  October  IGth,  1529,  could  do 
service  as  a  pattern  for  the  doctrinal  articles.  But  one  can- 
not fail  to  observe  that  the  reference  to  Eck's  articles  has 
also  partially  determined  the  selection  of  the  material,  and 
we  may  conclude  from  the  apparently  surprising  rejection  of 
heresies  of  the  early  and  raediawal  church  that  Melanchthon 
knew  how  much  Eck,  in  an  irritating  letter  to  the  Emperor 
on  March  14th,  and  in  the  manuscript  copy  of  his  pamphlet 
intended  for  the  latter,  had  heightened  his  attack  by  placing 
evangelical  theses  on  a  par  with  former  heretical  positions.'" 
The  Exordium  written  at  Coburg  was  now  recast,  and,  as 
Melanchthon  reported  to  Luther,  "set  more  rhetorically." 
In  a  few  days  the  work  had  progressed  so  far  that  as  early 
as  May  11th  the  Elector  was  able  to  send  it  to  Luther  with 
the  wish  to  have  him  look  it  over,  and  if  he  desired  "to  add 
to  it  or  omit  from  it,"  to  make  a  marginal  note  of  the  fact. 
And  Luther  returned  it  on  May  15th  and  wrote  to  the  Elector: 
"I  have  read  M.  Philipp's  Apologia:  I  1i/,-e  if  very  well,  in- 
deed, and  do  not  know  how  I  could  improve  or  alter  it,  and 
it  would  not  he  proper  to  do  so,  for  I  myself  cannot  tread  so 
gently  and  softly.  May  Christ  our  Lord  help  thai  it  may  hear 
much  and  great  frail,  as  I  hope  and  pray.  A)ncn."'*  In 
spite  of  his  ironical  allusion  to  Melanchthon's  well-known 
endeavor  to  give  no  offence  anywhere,  he  must  have  intended 
to  express  his  full  assent  to  the  document;  but  this  does  not 
exclude  the  possibility  of  his  having  made  some  marginal 
notes."      There    cannot    have   been   many,    of   course,    since 


"  Cf.   G.   L.   P  1  i  t  t  ,   Einlrit.   in   d.   Augus-tana,   I,   527.   s^qq. 

'«  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  C.  R.  11,  391.  The  Elector  to  Luther  E  n  d  e  r  s 
Vn,  328.     Luther's  answer.  D  e  W  e  t  t  e  ,  IV,  17. 

"  This  would  be  certain  if  the  "Concepta  ermelter  Confession  durch  Dr. 
Martin  Luther  und  Philippum  Melanchthon  seligen  gedechtnus  mit  eigen  han- 
den  corrigirt  u.  dareingeschrieben,"  which  were  claimed  to  exist  in  Dresden  in 
1.577  were  the  same  as  the  concept  sent  to  Luther  (Cf.  Kolde  Zeitschr.  fiir 
K.  G.  IV,  624  sq.).     According  to  Job.  Marbach,  Christtl.  u.  wabrhaf tiger 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   AUGUSTAN  A.  ir5 

Melanclithon  complains  that  Luther  had  not  thoroughly  ex- 
amined the  articles." 


But  what  wii?  it  that  Luther  saw  at  the  time  ?  The  oft- 
repeated  view  that  the  Confession  sent  him  contained  only  the 
first  17  articles,  the  doctrinal  ones,"  is  erroneous,  for  the 
Elector  sends  the  articles,  put  into  a  statement  by  Luther  and 
the  other  theologians  at  ^Yittenberg,  "that  are  in  controversy 
in  religion,"  and  which  Melanchthon  has  "  revised  and  form- 
ally expressed,"  i.  c,  the  whole,  and  probably  in  German 
and  in  Latin,""" — as  far  as  it  was  then  formulated.  How  much 
that  was,  can  be  only  partly  determined,  since  the  manuscript 
sent  Luther,  or  a  copy  of  it,  has  not  been  preserved.  It 
surely  contained  Melanchthon's  Introduction,  for  the  author 
of  it  considered  it  so  important  that  he  would  have  liked  to 
present  it  to  Luther  in  person."  Of  the  doctrinal  articles, 
Art.  20  (Of  Faith  and  Good  "Works)  was  entirely  lacking, 
and  so  was  Art.  21  (Of  Invocation  of  the  Saints)  ;  but  it  is 
still  more  important  to  know  that  Luther  saw  hardly  one 
article  in  the  form  in  which  the  Confession  was  afterward 
presented.  For  before  the  articles  had  come  back  from  Luther 
Melanchthon  had  continued  to  work  on  them,  as  he  writes  to 
Luther  on  May  22nd ;  nay  more,  he  found  something  to  alter 
every  day.    "We  learn  at  the  same  time,  that  he  replaced  Art. 


Unterrlcht,  etc.,  Strassburg  (1565),  p.  149,  Luther  is  said  to  have  added  to  the 
10th  article  the  words  "  ct  improbant  secus  docentes."  This  cannot  be  proven  : 
but  is  slightly  supported  by  a  remark  of  Melanchthon  on  the  signature  of 
the  Landgrave :  "  He  subscribed  the  Confession  for  us  in  which  is  also  the 
article  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  near  Luther's  sentence." — C.  R.  II,  142. 
As  Melanchthon  at  that  time  was  as  strenuously  opposed  to  the  Zwinglians  as 
Luther,  the  remark  is  at  least  striking. 

"  "  I  wish  you  had  read  through  the  articlos  of  faith,  and  if  you  thought 
there  is  no  mistake  in  them,  we  shall  treat  of  the  rest  at  some  time."  To 
Luther  on  May  22nd,  C.  R.  II,  60,  K  n  a  a  k  e  '  s  assertion  that  then  these 
articles  had  not  come  back,  is  erroneous,  since  Melanchthon's  letter  is  the 
reply  to  Luther's  of  May  15th  (Enders  VII,  3.34),  and  reached  Augsburg 
on  the  same  day  as  that  of  the  Elector.  Only  so  much  is  conceivable,  that 
Melanchthon  had  not  yet  e-icamined  the  articles  as  they  came  back  from 
Luther  since   the   messenger   arrived   between    writings. 

"Knaake75.      Enders  VII,   331. 

"  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Die  alteste  Redaktion,  p.  73   sq. 

^'  "  I  shall  briug  the  Introduction  in  a  short  time,  or,  if  the  Prince  does  not 
permit  it.  will  send  it."     To  Luther,  May  4th,  C.  R.  II,  39  sq. 


ire         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS, 

27  (Of  Vows),  which  seemed  too  scant,  by  a  fuller  one,  and 
was  busy  also  working  over  the  28th  article.''  This  article, 
which  then  treated  De  Potestate  Claviuni,  and  also  of  the 
Power  of  the  Pope,  is  preserved  to  ns  in  the  original  form  in 
wdiich  Luther  saw  it ;"'  but  through  the  influence  of  Chancel- 
lor Briick,  who,  as  the  Nuremberg  delegates  report,  took  a 
vivid  interest  in  the  alterations,"  it  received  an  essentially 
different  form.  It  turned  into  an  article  De  Potestate  Ecclc- 
siastica.  There  was  nothing  more  said  of  the  power  of  the 
Pope,"''  and  it  was  no  longer  found  necessary  "to  submissivehj 
please  his  imperial  innjesty,  and  for  certain  reasons  to  praise 
the  papacy,"  "'  for — and  Melanchthon  expressed  this  princi- 
ple quite  harmlessly  to  Luther — the  articles  ought  to  be 
adapted  to  circumstances  (or  the  prevailing  condition),  and 
the  Saxon  counsellors  desired  to  have  the  document  "formu- 
lated in  such  a  u-ay  that  there  was  no  getting  out  of  hearing 
the  argument."  " 

As  soon  as  they  had  arrived  in  Aug-sburg,  they  had 
learned  that  they  had  overestimated  the  Emperor's  peaceful 
intentions,  which  were  seemingly  guaranteed  by  the  summons 
to  the  Diet,  and  that  the  papal  legate,  Lorenzo  Campeggi, 
George  of  Saxony,  and  other  princes  of  Poman  propensities, 
who  had  journeyed  to  meet  the  Emperor  at  Innsbruck,  had 
made  their  influence  felt  against  the  Protestants.  In  order 
to  weaken  the  influence  of  the  Eckian  calumnies,  and  to 
testify  to  his  own  orthodoxy  and  his  opposition  to  the  "Sac- 
ramentarians,"  the  Elector  had  under  the  utmost  secrecy  in 
the  first  days  of  his  stay  in  Augsburg  sent  a  poor  transla- 


=  We  change  much  of  the  Apologj'  daily,  etc.,  C.  R.  II,  60.     Cf.  p.  71. 
^^Forstemann  I,  87  .sqq. 

=♦  On  May  24th  the  Nuremberg  delcgate.s  write  (C.  R.  II,  62)  :  "  TUe  Saxon 
Counsel  has  been  returned  by  Dr.  Luther  ;  but  Dr.  Briick,  the  old  chancellor, 
has  to  recast  it  from   beginning  to  end." 

=^  T  h  .   K  o  1  d  e  ,    Alteste   Redaktion,    p.    63    sq. 

"  Thus  the  Stras?burg  delegates  reported  1537  from  the  Diet  of  Schmalkald. 
T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Analecta  Lutherana.  Gotha.  1S83,  p.  297. 

"C.  R.  II,  71. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.  i;? 

tion  of  the  Schwabacli  articles  to  the  Emperor."*  But  he 
had  small  success  with  it,  for  Charles  Y.  demanded  that 
Evangelical  preaching  be  prohibited  in  Augsburg, 

Under  these  conditions  the  oldest  draft  of  the  Confession 
(so  far  known  to  us)  was  produced.  It  was  received  by  the 
Xuremberg  delegates  May  31st,  and,  after  they  had  also  re- 
ceived the  preface  or  introduction,  was  sent  home  by  them 
on  June  3rd,  with  the  remark:  '"It  still  lacks  an  article  or 
two  at  the  end,  besides. the  resolution  still  being  vorl-ed  upon 
by  the  Saxon  theologians/'  The  text  in  question  was  in 
Latin,  but  is  known  to  us  only  through  a  German  version 
prepared  for  the  Xuremberg  Council  by  Jerome  Baumgart- 
ner.  At  any  rate,  we  learn  from  it  how  far  the  Confession 
had  progressed  in  scope  and  contents  by  the  end  of  May. 

Following  Melanchthon's  Introduction,  which  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  lost,  and  of  which  special  mention  will  be 
made,  comes  the  Confession  itself,  with  its  two  chief  divi- 
sions: "the  articles  of  faith"  and  the  "disputed  articles." 
Hence  the  main  outline  and  the  subjects  treated  are  (aside 
from  the  fact  that  the  articles  on  ''faith  and  good  works" 
and  on  the  "invocation  of  saints"  are  still  wanting)  the 
same  as  every  one  knows  them  from  the  completed  confes- 
sion. But  in  the  framing  of  the  separate  parts  there  is  at 
times  quite  a  considerable  difference,  and  the  arrangement 
of  the  separate  articles  of  faith  then  extant  is  altogether 
different. 

Following  the  first  article  of  God,  the  second  of  original 
sin,  the  third  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  justifies  and  sanctifies 
ill  rough  the  Holy  Ghost,  comes  a  fourth,  corresponding  to  the 
later  fifth  article  (the  office  of  teaching  the  Gospel),  on  oh- 
taining  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Word  and  the  Sacra- 
ments.    The  article  on  Justification  does  not  come  until  the 


'^Th.  Brleger,  in  Kirchengeseh.  Sttidien,  p.  392.  C.  Stange. 
Kurf.  .lohanns  Glaubensbekenntniss  vom  Mai  1530.  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kritiken. 
1903,   p.   459   sqq.      Ehses,   Rom.    Quartalschrift.   XVII    (1903),    p.    385. 

2*  K  o  1  d  e  ,    Alteste  Redaktion,   p.   4,   sqq. 


178         THE   LV  THEE  AN    CONFESSIONS. 

fifth  place,  and,  in  comparison  with  the  later  form  in  a 
frame  somewhat  less  dogmatical  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
the  impntatio  (Hanc  fidem  impiitat  Deus  pro  justitia 
coram  Deo)  is  not  yet  clearly  expressed.  In  article  6  at 
that  time  more  stress  was  laid  on  the  ''through  grace,"  later 
more  on  the  "faith."  The  later  articles  7  and  8,  which 
stand  in  essentially  the  same  form,  are  there  still  put  to- 
gether in  one  article,  and  clearly  show  that  Melanchthon's 
endeavor  was  to  treat  not  of  the  Church,  but  of  tlie  "  unity 
of  the  Church."'"  The  article  on  baptism  was  then  an  article 
on  the  necessity  of  hi f ant  baptism,  while  the  one  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  had  its  present  form.  The  later  article 
11,  de  confessione,  was  intended  to  treat  of  private  abso- 
lution. This  was  followed  with  slight  variations  and  changes 
of  order  by  the  articles  on  repentance  and  the  use  of  the 
sacraments,  and  then  (in  an  order  which  was  changed  soon 
after)  the  13th  article  of  liuraan  ordinances,  of  the  ordo 
ecclesiasticus  (evidently  omitted  from  the  manuscript)  and 
(15)  of  civil  affairs.  The  following,  16th,  which  was  later 
changed  to  the  ITth,  ''of  the  second  coming  of  Christ,"  origi- 
nally treated  in  by  no  means  biblical  fashion  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  ("that  all  deceased  persons  shall  be  awakened 
with  that  same  body  of  theirs  in  which  they  had  died"), 
turned  against  the  doctrine  of  the  "followers  of  Origen  and 
the  Anabaptists"  of  the  ultimate  redemption  of  the  damned 
and  the  devils,  and  rejects,  besides  Chiliasm,  specially  those 
who,  ("in  Jewish  manner  teach  that  the  promise  of  the  pos- 
session of  the  Promised  Land  is  to  be  considered  in  a  cor- 
poreal sense")."  This  is  followed  by  the  articles  on  the 
Freedom  of  the  Will  and  the  Summary,  with  their  wording 
only  slightly  different  from  the  final  form. 

The  second  part  is  opened  in  somewhat  different  form 
and  with  a  renewed  emphasis  on  the  assertion  that  no  article 
of  faith  has  l^een  departed  from,  by  the  same  thoughts  that 


»"  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  D.  Augsb.  Konfession,  p.  32. 
"  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  D.  alteste  Redaktion,  p.  54  sq. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    AUaUSTAXA.  179 

Melaiichthon  in  the  last  revision  placed  partly  in  the  Sum- 
mary. The  material  diiferenees  in  the  ''  disputed  articles  " 
are  not  so  great  in  comparison  with  the  later  form  (even 
the  Xuremberg  text  shows  the  previously  mentioned  recast- 
ing of  the  (28th)  article  on  "The  Power  of  the  Keys"  to 
the  "Power  of  the  Church"),  but  they  are  more  numerous,  a 
thing  into  which  we  need  not  enter  here/'  It  is  characteris- 
lic,  that  Melanchthon  has  the  greatest  trust  in  the  Emperor 
even  yet,  and  yields  to  the  temptation  in  the  article  on  the 
Marriage  of  Priests  '^  to  address  an  apostrophe  to  him.  An- 
other characteristic  thing  is  the  great  severity  against  the 
Sacramentarians.  Thus  we  read  at  the  close  of  the  then  very 
short  article  on  the  Mass,  whicli,  however,  contained  a  very 
caustic  objection  to  Masses  for  the  Dead,  which  was  after- 
ward suppressed,  the  following  remark :  "In  this  connec- 
tion we  also  condemn  the  unchristian  teaching  which  denies 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present."" 

But  this  earliest  redaction  only  assumes  full  significance 
in  connection  with  Melanchthon's  Introduction.  If  Eck's 
attacks  had  moved  him  to  convert  the  "Apology"  into  a  con- 
fession, he  all  the  more  readily  seized  upon  the  opportunity 
to  give  the  detailed  Introduction,  which  must  be  considered 
an  integral  part  of  the  whole  Saxon  Counsel,  the  character  of 
a  defense  of  his  Elector. 

Xext  to  God,  the  latter  places  his  full  trust  in  the  ever 
manifest  goodness  and  grace  of  the  Emperor,  who  had  ever 
sought  only  the  peace  of  Europe,  and  had  shown  nothing 
but  clemency  in  the  religious  controversies,  so  that  he  is  un- 
justly accused  of  cruelty,  and  had  even  now  declared  his 
readiness  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  And,  as  can  be  learned 
from  Ps.  2 :  10,  there  is  nothing  more  well  pleasing  to  God 
than  if  the  Emperor  would  use  all  his  power  toward  a  unifi- 


^"^  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  D.  alteste  Redaktion,  p.  57  sq. 

wjb.,  p.   18. 

2»  Jb.,   pp.    19   and   59, 

'» Ih.,  p.  20. 


180         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

cation  of  Christendom,  just  as  formerly  Theodoric,  Charle- 
magne and  Henry  II.,  to  whom  Charles  V.  is  in  no  wise 
inferior  in  virtues  and  piety,  and  whom  he  far  surpasses  in 
power  and  glory. 

Before,  then,  discussing  the  doctrine  preached  in  the  elec- 
torate, it  must  be  shown  that  the  Elector  did  not  foster  this 
new  doctrine  from  malign  purpose.  He  and  his  brother 
Frederick  have  through  all  their  lives  been  inclined  to  the 
Christian  religion  and  faith,  and  have  built  and  adorned 
churches  and  institutions  ])artly  at  their  own  expense.  They 
have  always  preserved  allegiance  to  the  Koman  emperors,  and 
in  all  affairs  of  the  empire  have  rendered  considerable  help 
in  money  and  armature.  They  have  never  entered  into 
treaties  with  foreign  nations  or  the  enemies  of  the  Empire, 
nor  given  any  occasion  for  discord,  but  rather  have  shown 
patience  in  the  interest  of  peace,  and  more  than  once  ''by 
their  diligence  and  pains  have  brought  others  who  were  al- 
ways armed,  to  peace  and  quiet."  Xo  one  could  believe  that 
the  Elector,  without  great  reason,  would  have  gotten  himself 
and  his  family  into  such  great  danger;  but  the  matter  had 
proceeded  from  the  many  pious  souls,  who  were  hindered 
by  the  many  Inunan  ordinances  and  the  daily  increasing 
abuses,  and  the  fact  that  nothing  more  was  said  about  repent- 
ance and  the  free  grace  offered,  not  for  the  sake  of  our  own 
merit,  but  the  faith  in  Christ. 

Then  it  is  told  how  the  preaching  of  indulgences  had 
induced  Luther  to  contradict  "scholastically"  and  not  before 
the  people,  and  without  abusing  the  papacy,  in  '^several 
pamphlets;"  but  that  his  op])onents,  whom  he  was  obliged 
to  answer,  had  created  a  great  controversy.  Since  then 
many  had  found  great  delight  in  his  salutary  and  comforting 
doctrine  of  repentance,  it  would  have  been  contrary  to  con- 
science to  do  anything  against  the  adherents  of  this  doctrine, 
Inasmuch  as  if  the  learned  preachers  had  been  removed,  the 
perversion  of  doctrine  would  have  become  much  worse.  For 
even  before  Luther  had  written  anything,  obnoxious  and  er- 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   AUGUST  AM  181 

foneous  doctrine  had  originated,  and  would  have  caused  dan- 
gerous innovation  and  revolt,  had  not  Luther  interposed. 
Thus  many  heresies  against  the  holy  sacrament  had  been 
suppressed;  also  the  doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists  ('Svhich 
had  started  before  Luther")  against  possession  of  temporal 
property,  judginent  and  power  of  the  authorities,  and  against 
all  civil  order,  would  have  spread  much  further  had  not  the 
hearts'  of  men  been  strengthened  by  evangelical  teaching. 
But  the  matter  had  been  made  obnoxious  by  the  common 
rumor  that  the  evangelical  people  had  done  away  with  all 
ceremonies  and  had  overthrown  all  spiritual  order.  But  it 
could  be  truthfully  said  that  in  all  Germany  the  mass  (dur- 
ing which,  beside  the  Latin  singing,  there  were  also  German 
hymns)  was  observed  according  to  the  usual  custom,  with 
no  greater  fear  of  God  than  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony. 
And  in  order  to  prove  the  unfoundedness  of  assertions  to  the 
contrary,  Melanchthon  seeks  to  draw  a  picture  of  the  eccle- 
siastical order  in  Saxony.  He  points  to  the  frequent  partici- 
pation in  the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  people,  the  retention  of 
confession,  the  praise  of  the  power  of  the  Keys  in  preaching, 
the  maintenance  of  schools,  etc.,  and  above  all  to  the  very 
useful  observance  once  diligently  maintained  and  then 
dropped  through  laziness  of  pastors  and  people,  and  by 
which  an  effort  was  now  made  in  Saxony  to  lead  the  chil- 
dren to  a  Christian  understanding  of  faith  and  doctrine, 
namely,  the  Catechism  and  Christian  instruction. 

Hence  the  order  of  the  Church  was  "for  the  most  part  in 
accordance  with  ancient  custom  and  usage  of  the  Roman 
Church  according  to  the  instruction  of  the  holy  teachers." 
And  if  the  Bishops  who  persecuted  the  Evangelical  people 
on  account  of  the  marriage  of  priests,  etc.,  were  a  little  in- 
clined to  suffer  such  matters  no  one  would  have  any  occa- 
sion to  lament  that  the  order  of  the  Church  is  broken.  They 
maintained  without  reason  that  the  Evangelical  people  aimed 
at  suppressing  spiritual  power„  If  the  bishops  gave  up  a  few 
improper  and  oppressive  innovations,  they  would  suffer  no 


182         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

loss  of  power  and  glory,  and  wonld  not  need  to  wori'y  about 
their  possessions,  ''although  some  others  before  our  time  re- 
peatedly undertook  under  the  semblance  of  a  reformation  to 
deprive  the  clerics  of  their  possessions."  The  poverty  of  the 
bishops  in  itself  was  of  no  advantage  to  the  Church.  The 
advantage  lay  in  their  preaching  the  gospel  purely  and  with- 
out error.  ''Thus  we  teach,"  says  the  close,  "to  consider  all 
civil  commands  and  orders  under  secular  and  spiritual  power 
as  an  order  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  unity.  There  has 
never  been  a  reformation  undertaken  so  utterly  without  vio- 
lence as  this  one,  as  it  is  manifest  that  others  have  been 
brought  to  peace  through  ours,  though  they  w^ere  already  in 
arms." 

Hence  the  Saxon  Counsel,  which  nowhere  paid  attention  to 
the  general  condition  of  Evangelical  believers,  and  never 
said  a  Avord  about  the  question  of  a  council,  was  a  private 
confession  in  the  full  sense  of  the  w'ord.  AVhat  the  Elector 
and  his  theologians  strive  for,  is  to  put  into  the  most  favor- 
able light  the  ecclesiastical  conditions  in  their  own  coun- 
try (though  it  be  at  the  expense  of  others)  and  their  own 
loyalty,  and  also,  above  all  things,  to  maintain  peace  in  their 
own  land.  We  must,  of  course,  remember  that  Melanchthon 
and  all  the  AVittenbergians  were  from  the  beginning  opposed 
to  the  efforts  for  confederation. 

But  the  Emperor,  according  to  the  official  invitation, desired 
to  hear  the  opinion  of  cveryhodjj  and  other  estates  had  also 
made  preparations  to  this  effect,  notably  Strasburg,  Reutlin- 
gen,  Ulm,  Constance,  Ileilbronn.''  On  the  mere  tidings  of 
the  impending  Diet,  Margrave  George,  of  Brandenburg,  had 
as  early  as  1530  demanded  of  his  principal  pastors  to  deliver 
an  opinion  in  "  untwisted  "  Avords  on  the  true  doctrine  and 


^*Strassburg:  Th.  Keim,  Schwab.  Ref.  Gesch.  Tubingen  1855,  p. 
149. — R  eutllngen:  Gayler,  Hist.  Denkwiirdigkeiten  der  ehem.  freien 
Reichsstadt  Reutlingen.  Reutlingen,  1840.  p.  350  sq. — U  1  m  :  G  .  E  n  g  e  1- 
h  a  a  f  ,  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  16.  Jahrh.  Vol.  11.  Leipzig,  1892,  p.  142  sq., 
und  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Alteste  Redak.,  p.  183. — C  onstance:  .TohnFicker, 
Das  Konst.  Bekennt.  fiir  d.  Reichstag  zu  Augsb.,  1530  (Theo.  Abhandl.  fijr  H. 
.T.  Holtzmann)  Tubingen,  1902. — Hcilbronn:  Duncker,  Analekten  zur 
Ilof.    Gesch.    Heilbronns    ZKG.    XXV,    p.    311    sqq. 


ORIGIX    OF    THE   AUGUSTANA.  183 

the  justification  for  abolishing  abuses.  But  we  do  not  learn 
that  anv  attempt  was  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  individual 
opinions  received  to  elaborate  a  confession  in  the  name  of 
the  princes ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Margrave  intended  from  the 
start  to  confer  with  Xuremberg,  Saxony,  and  those  who  were 
in  harmony  with  him  concerning  the  sacrament.  This  prob- 
ably from  the  beginning  was  the  standpoint  of  Nuremberg, 
for,  although  an  opinion  had  been  there  elaborated,  the 
Xuremberg  delegates  to  the  Diet,  Christopher  v.  Kress  and 
Clement  ^'olkamer,  had  received  orders  to  remain  in 
close  touch  with  the  Saxons."  The  Landgrave  of  Hessen, 
who  was  utterly  opposed  to  having  the  question  of  religion 
decided  at  the  Diet,  does  not  seem  to  have  prepared  any  con- 
fession. Xe^'ertheless,  he  was  probably  the  first,  who  per- 
haps unofficially  in  conversation  with  the  Saxon  theologians 
had  uttered  the  desire  to  unite  with  the  Saxon  Confession. 
The  same  was  done  perhaps  soon  after  the  arrival  of  the 
Margrave,  on  May  20th,  by  the  Ansbach  councillors  and  the 
delegates  of  Reutlingen  and  Xuremberg.'* 

But  the  old  Elector  was  hard  to  deal  with.  He  did  not 
care  for  a  confederation.  He  wished  to  maintain  his  isola- 
tion, and  above  all  things  would  brook  no  interference.  To 
the  Xuremberg  delegates  he  sent  word  through  the  Chancellor 
Briick :  "  His  electoral  Grace  did  not  like  many  councillors 
in  such  an  urt'air,  for  the  devil,"  these  were  his  words,  "waa 
fond  of  too  much  counsel."  ""  But  finally  they  at  least  on  their 
request  obtained  the  copy  previously  mentioned.  But  the  ne- 
gotiations did  not  advance.  As  late  as  June  8th  the  Branden- 
burg Chancellor  Vogler  and  Kress  complain  that  the  Confes- 
sion was  made  only  in  the  name  of  the  Elector,  for,  as 
Melanchthon  had  done  in  the  name  of  the  Elector,  "the  in- 
troduction might  separately  specify  where  it  could  not  be  done 


"  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Andreas  Altharaer.  Erlangen,  1895.  pp.  45.  65.  C. 
Schornbaum,  Zur  Politik  des  Markgrafen  Georg  von  Brandenburg. 
Miinchen,   1906,   pp.   118  sq.   and   426   sqq. 

^''  T  h  .    K  o  1  d  e  ,    Alteste   Redaktion.  p.  40  sq. 

'»C.   R.,   II,   53. 


184         TEE   LUTHEnAN    CONFESSIONS. 

In  comiiKiu,  what  every  one  had  done  for  IT.  I.  M."'  "'  It  is  in 
this  sense  that  tlie  Xnrembergians  and  the  Margrave  desired 
to  have  Melanchthon's  Introduction  altered.  The  Landgrave's 
views  were  different.  As  appears  from  his  correspondence  " 
carried  on  Avith  Melanchtlion,  May  llth-13th,  lie  believed  that 
a  prerequisite  for  a  confederation  was  fraternalism  (with  the 
Highland  theologians)  and  the  invitation  to  a  council,  *.  e., 
he  persisted  in  the  early  demands  of  the  Evangelical  party, 
and  declined  to  leave  tlie  decision  with  the  Emperor  and  the 
Diet  as  Melanchtlion  and  the  Elector  desired  to  do. 

In  the  meantime  Melanchtlion  had  continued  to  work  on 
the  Confession.  This  is  borne  out  by  the  German  text,"  pre- 
served in  Spalatin's  hand,  and  which  has  been  produced  grad- 
ually. This  for  the  greater  part  must  be  assigned  to  the 
first  half  of  June,  and  approaches  the  one  finally  adopted, 
and  in  its  alterations  here  and  there  plainly  shows  the  in- 
fluence of  the  negotiations  with  the  Landgrave.^' 

By  June  15th  the  Saxon  court  had  determined  upon  the 
principle  of  admitting  other  estates  to  the  confession ;  for  the 
German  text,  which  on  this  day  was  sent  to  Nuremberg,  and 
in  which  appears  for  the  first  time  the  twentieth  article  "On 
Faith  and  Good  Works,"  which  was  not  yet  completed  in  the 
Latin,  contained  at  the  place  where  the  Latin  said  that  in  the 
Electorate  of  Saxony  this  or  that  was  preached,  "a  common 
wor-d  which  can  be  a])plied  to  all  estates ;"  but  neither  the  ISTu- 
rembergians  nor  the  ^largrave  had  received  a  definite  answer 
u])  to  this  time."     The  decision  followed  soon  after. 


*"C.  R..   II,   88  sq.  *'Ih..  92  sqq. 

*-F6rstemann,  Urkundenbuch  I,  310,  and  Kolde,  Alteste  Red.  p.  71. 

"Thus  the  very  caustic  passage  against  the  Sacramentarians  (Alteste  Red. 
p.  20  etc.)  is  omitted  and  replaced  by  a  milder  but  not  final  form.  On  the 
other  band,  Melanchthon  still  puts  his  greatest  trust  in  the  Emperor,  and  in 
the  article  on  the  marriage  of  priests  praises  him  as  a  special  lover  of  chastity 
(Forstcmann  p.   329   sq.  ) . 

*•  C.  R.  IT,  p.  105.  (In  Spalatin's  copy  the  article  on  "  Faith  and  Good 
Works  "  is  Inserted  later.)  The  article  on  the  "  Invocation  of  Saints  "  was 
still  wanting.  This  non-extant  Nuremberg  German  text  must  have  had  the 
same  form  of  the  "Articles  of  Faith  "  as  the  so-called  I  Anshach  Manuscript  in 
Forstemann,  Urkundenbuch  I,  341  sq.  (And  the  I  Hannoverian.  Cf. 
Tschackert  in  Archiv  f.  Ref.  Gesch.  II,  69  sqq.)  only  that  the  Ansbacher 
manuscript,  which  is  several  days  older,  does  not  yet  contain  the   20th  article. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   AUGUSTAN  A.  185 

On  June  15th  the  Emperor  had  entered  Augsburg.  He 
at  once  demanded  that  the  princes  should  take  part  in  the 
Corpus  Christi  procession  and  renewed  his  demand  to  desist 
from  preaching  the  Gospel.  The  magnitude  of  the  danger  in 
which  they  found  themselves,  especially  after  the  death  at 
Innsbruck,  on  June  4th,  of  the  High  Chancellor  Mercurinus 
Gattinara,  who  was  considered  a  lover  of  peace,  had  been 
the  first  thing  to  bring  the  evangelical  princes  together.  The 
Elector,  the  Margrave,  Duke  Ernest  of  Liineburg,  and  the 
Landgrave,  who  had  been  commanded  by  the  Emperor  upon 
his  arrival  in  Augsburg  to  meet  him  in  a  separate  apartment, 
had  in  common  maintained  their  evangelical  standpoint  in 
the  matter  of  preaching  and  the  procession,'"'  and  in  the  opin- 
ion delivered  on  June  ICtli  by  the  Brandenburg  Chancellor 
Vogler,  who  favors  the  plan  of  delivering  the  Articles  of 
Faith  at  once  to  the  Emperor  in  order  to  convince  him  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  Protestants,  the  princes,  including  Duke 
Francis  of  Liineburg,  already  appear  as  a  closed  party." 

The  first  one  who  was  accepted  as  a  fellow-confessor  was 
undoubtedly  the  Margrave,  for  from  him  and  the  Elector  to- 
gether the  Xurembergians,  on  June  18th,  received  the  promise 
to  "receive  them  together  with  their  graces  in  this  matter."  * 
At  the  same  time,  although  nothing  direct  is  recorded  on  this 
point,  Duke  Ernest  of  Liineburg,  Duke  Wolf  of  Anhalt 
and  the  city  of  Reutlingen  must  also  have  been  admitted, 
while  the  negotiations  with  the  Landgrave  were  not  yet  con- 
cluded. A  Latin  text  of  the  Articles  of  Faith,  which  was 
probably  sent  him  during  this  time,  and  which  must  have 
been  of  prime  importance  to  him  on  account  of  his  position 
in  reference  to  the  Zwinglians,  shows  the  final  form  with  but 
few  variations,  and  contains  the  newly  added  article  (prob- 
ably first  written  in  Latin)  on  the  "Livocation  of  the  Saints."'' 


« lb.,  106.     T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Martin  Luther  II,  342. 
"Forstemaun,  Urkundenbuch  I,  215. 
"C.  R.  II,  112. 

**  See   the   French    text   based   on   the   Latin    Cassel.    (now   Marburg)    manu- 
script   in    Forstemann    1,    357.      Alteste    Red.,   p.    69. 


186         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  now  a  memorable  episode  occurred.  The  unexpectedly 
harsh  conduct  of  the  Emperor  in  the  matter  of  the  Corpus 
Christi  procession  and  of  preaching  had  made  an  overwhelm- 
ing impression  on  the  faint-hearted  Melanchthon.  Even 
before,  he  had  been  busy  to  impress  upon  influential  person- 
alities of  the  opposite  party,  his  own  love  of  peace,  the  insig- 
nificance of  the  departure  from  the  Roman  church  in  doc- 
trine and  usages,  and  not  the  least  the  fact  that  he  had  noth- 
ing in  common  with  the  hated  Zwinglians.  Now,  after  the 
arrival  of  the  Emperor,  in  his  consimiing  anxiety  and  urgent 
desire  to  settle  the  niatter  as  soon  as  possible,  he  at  once 
sought  to  get  in  touch  with  two  imperial  secretaries." 

One  of  them,  Cornelius  Schepper,  a  Netherlander,  who 
was  very  reticent,  ouly  confirmed  his  fear  that  the  Emperor 
was  determined  to  proceed  against  the  Lutherans.  As  for 
the  other,  Lorenzo  Valdes,  a  Spaniard,  he  succeeded  in  con- 
vincing him  of  the  thing  which  at  the  time  appeared  most 
important  to  Melanchthon,  that  the  matter  was  not  by  far 
so  difficult,  and  that  the  main  issues  were  the  twofold  form 
of  the  sacrauient,  the  marriage  of  priests  and  the  abolishment 
of  private  masses.  This  man  made  a  report  to  the  Emperor, 
who  was  long  desirous  of  effecting  harmony  without  an  ex- 
tended examination  and  discussion,  and  now  transmitted  Me- 
lauchthon's  presentations  to  Cardinal  Campeggi.  Since  the 
latter  did  not  pronounce  himself  unfavorably,  ^Melanchthon, 
on  June  ISth,  received  from  Valdes  the  Emperor's  com- 
mand to  present  the  controversial  points  in  briefest  and  least 
diffuse  form,  '*in  order  to  be  able  to  consider  the  matter,  if 
])ossib]e,  in  all  privacy  and  quiet."  ]\Ielanchthon  thereupon, 
as  he  informed  the  Nuremberg  delegates  on  June  19th,  be- 
lieved momentarilv  that  thev  woidd  be  able  to  desist  from 


«»Th.  Kolde.  Anal.  I.utlierana  irifi,  140,  C.  R.  II.  llS  sq.  122.  For  the 
initiative  of  Melanchthon  and  the  details  of  the  transactions  and  their  apprecia- 
tion (against  Brieger's  contrary  conception,  Zur  Gesch.  d.  Augsb, 
Reichstags  von  1530,  Leipzig,  1903,  Progr.)  see  Kolde,  Xlteste  Red., 
76   sqq. 


OBJ  GIN    OF    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.  187 

presenting  the  CNnife^ision  and  delayed  liiiisliing  it.  But  he- 
fore  he  continued  his  negotiations,  he  considered  it  advisable 
to  confer  vnth.  Chancellor  Briick  and  with  other  theologians 
concerning  the  matters  to  present  to  the  Emperor.  This  was 
on  June  21st,  on  the  day  following  the  official  opening  of  the 
Diet.  The  result  was  the  rejection  of  Melanchthon's  inde- 
pendent negotiations,  which  would  have  given  up  the  legal 
foundation  of  the  invitation,  and  a  resolution  was  adopted 
the  same  day  now  to  draw  into  the  deliberation  the  council- 
lors and  theologians  of  the  separate  estates  and  complete  a 
common  Confession. 

Now,  in  connection  with  the  transactions  concerning  the 
final  accession  of  the  Landgrave,  the  matter  of  the  Introduc- 
tion and  the  final  "presentation"  must  have  been  decided. 
The  Landgrave  himself  had  in  the  meantime  reached  the 
conclusion  that  it  would  not  be  possible  to  effect  a  union  with 
the  Swiss  theologians."  On  the  other  hand,  it  had  become 
evident,  how  dangerous  it  would  be  to  leave  the  decision  to 
the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  as  Melanchthon  and  the  Saxons 
desired,  and  that  only  the  simultaneous  falling  back  upon 
the  demand  for  a  council,  as  Hessen  emphasized,  could  guar- 
antee safe  protection.  Besides  the  original  desire  of  the  Mar- 
grave and  the  Xurembergians  to  see  their  services  to  the  Em- 
peror and  the  country  brought  forward  in  the  Introduction 
as  Melanchthon  had  done  for  Saxony,  proved  to  be  impracti- 
cable even  for  formal  reasons.  Thus  a  compromise  was  ef- 
fected. Melancldhons  Introduction  teas  completely  laid 
aside.  In  its  place  was  put  a  preface  edited  in  German  by 
the  Chancellor  Briick,  and  translated  into  Latin  by  Justus 
Jonas."     At   the   same   time   tliis   preface   omitted    (as   the 


™This  "  fraternalism  "  he  had  given  up  by  signing  the  explanation  of  the 
Ev.  princes  in  the  preaching  question,  .lune  17th  (For  ste  maun  I.  2S8. 
Cf.    Th.    Kolde,    Alteste    Red.,    p.    45). 

"  That  the  German  preface  derives  from  Briick  and  was  translated  into  Latin 
by  Justus  .Jonas,  is  proven  by  a  marginal  note  of  the  latter  (?)  In  a  copy  of  the 
first  edition  of  the  Augustana,  1531,  in  the  Wittenberg  Theol.  Seminary : 
"  Translated  from  Brilck's  German  text  by  Justus  Jonas."  Cf.  Forstemann 
I,   p.   460. 


188         THE    LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Landgrave,  in  the  midst  of  his  political  relations  to  the 
Swiss  and  Highlanders,  could  hardly  do  otherwise  than  de- 
mand) all  the  more  or  less  open  attacks  of  Melanchthon's 
Introduction,  upon  the  Sacramentarians  and  the  declaratious 
upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  Avhich  could  hardly  be 
harmonized  with  the  positions  assumed  at  the  last  Diet  of 
Spires.  Referring  in  a  businesslike  way  to  the  invitation  to 
a  diet,  the  explanation  is  given  that  the  Evangelical  estates 
hereby  "  deliver  their  opinion  and  judgment  on  account  of 
errors,  schisms  and  abuses,"  and  are  ready,  if  the  other  es- 
tates did  the  same  (of  which  Melanchthon's  Introduction 
made  no  mention),  to  discuss  with  them  ''in  proper  and  legit- 
imate manner."  And  quite  in  accordance  with  the  view  of 
the  Landgrave,  mention  was  made  of  the  Diet  transactions 
of  later  years,  and  the  Emperor's  declaration  not  to  permit 
the  Diet  to  legislate  in  matters  of  religion,  but  to  demand  a 
council  of  the  Pope.  For  this  reason  the  Evangelical  estates 
"  superfluously  "  offer  to  come  to  a  free  Christian  council,  by 
renewing  their  former  appeal  to  one.  Thereby  this  offer, 
the  summing  up  of  their  demands  and  standpoints,  for  which 
the  Nurembergians  had  always  waited,  and  which  originally 
was  to  have  been  put  at  the  close,  was  put  in  the  introduction 
where  it  belonged." 

But  we  do  not  know  exactly  when  the  introduction  was 
finished,  though  it  probably  was  in  the  final  consultation  on 
Thursday,  June  23rd.  This  was  participated  in  by  the  Elector 
of  Saxony,  the  Landgrave  of  Hessen,  the  Margrave  of  Bran- 
denburg, the  Dukes  of  Liineburg,  the  representatives  of  Xu- 
remberg  and  Reullingen,  as  well  as  their  counsellors  and  no 
less  than  twelve  theologians."'  As  for  the  Confession,  Me- 
lanchthon  altered  and  filed  it  up  to  the  last,  and  put  things 
more  mildly,  because  he  had  learned  to  his  anxiety  that  the 
before-mentioned  imperial  secretary,  Valdes,  whom  he  had 


'-  See   K  o  1  d  e  ,    Alteste   Red.,   pp.    45   sq. 

<"  Cf.    the    Report    of    the    Nuremberg    delegates,    C.    R.    II,    127    sq.    where 
Prince  Wolfg.  of  Auhalt   is  not  mentioned,  nor  during  the  presentation. 


OEIGJN    OF    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.  189 

permitted  to  look  at  it,  bad  found  it  much  too  caustic.  It 
was  once  more  discussed  and  reviewed,  during  which  process 
several  individual  points  received  special  consideration.  ^le- 
lanchthon  desired  very  much  to  grant  full  jurisdiction  to  the 
bishops,  as  he  had  done  in  bis  introduction ;  but  he  could  not 
accomplish  his  purpose."  That  was  probably  the  time  when,' 
if  not  earlier,  in  the  article  on  the  sacrament  in  either  kind 
(22nd)  the  paragraph  against  processions  with  the  host  must 
have  been  added.  The  statements  against  the  sacramenta- 
rians,  as  already  stated,  were  partly  omitted  and  partly  soft- 
ened down.  The  attempt  (which  was  probably  made)  in  tlie 
interest  of  the  Highland  theologians,  who  were  willing  to  join 
only  if  Article  10  were  omitted,  to  make  a  change  in  the  state- 
ments about  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  futile.  The  10th  article 
kept  its  form  to  the  sorrow  of  the  Landgrave.  But  he  yielded.^' 
The  following  finally  sigTied:  Elector  John,  of  Saxony; 
Margrave  Georg,  of  Brandenburg;  Duke  Ernest,  of  Bruns- 
wick-Lunenburg; Landgrave  Philipp,  of  Hessen;  Prince 
"Wolfgang,  of  Anhalt ;  the  representatives  of  the  cities  Nurem- 
berg and  Reutlingen,  and  probably  also  Elector  John  Fred- 
erick and  Duke  Francis,  of  Liineburg.'^ 

Thus  the  Confession  was  at  last  completed  June  23rd.  As 
early  as  the  24th,  after  a  postponement"  had  in  vain  been 
asked  through  the  Cardinal  of  Mayence,  for  the  purpose  of 
gaining  time  to  produce  a  clean  copy,  it  was  to  have  been 
presented  in  the  Diet.    But  negotiations  with  the  papal  legate 


"Mel.  to  Camerarius  on  June  19th  (?).  C.  R.  II,  119:  "I  yield  the  whole 
Jurisdiction,  etc.,  to  the  bishops,  etc."  To  the  same  (June  26,  C.  R.  II,  140)  : 
"  I  changed  and  recast  daily  "  etc.  Jonas  to  Luther,  June  30th  (  E  n  d  e  r  .s 
VIII,  67)  :  "  Our  Master  Philipp  is  marching  with  the  best  disposition 
cautiously  and  carefully.  .  .  .  And  we  have  also  had  some  strife  about  the 
power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  bi.shops,  which  I  shall  whisper  about  to  you." 

'^  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Alteste  Red.,  p.  66  :  The  Argentinenses  solicited  rather  often 
to  be  received  without  the  article  of  the  sacrament ;  but  the  princes  were  un- 
willing. Virck,  Polit.  Korresp.  d.  Stadt  Strassburg  (Strassburg,  1882),  I, 
458.     Also  Kolde,  Anal.  Luth.,  125  and  C.   R.   II,  97  sqq. 

5«  K  o  1  1  n  e  r  ,  Symbolik  I,  201.      B  r  u  c  k  ,  p.   28.     J.  T.  M  ii  1  1  e  r,    p.   585, 
"Kolde,    Neue  Augustanastudien.      Neue   Kirchl.   Zeitschr.    XVII    (1906), 
p.  737  sqq. 
16 


190         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  a  long  presentation  of  the  representatives  of  Karinthia 
and  Krain  on  the  Turkish  danger  had  taken  up  so  much  time 
that  the  Emperor  and  his  counsellors  declared  it  would  not 
be  necessary  to  read  the  Confession,  and  desired  to  have  it 
merely  presented.  But  the  Evangelical  Estates,'*  who  were 
anxious  to  confess  their  faith  publicly  in  view  of  the  public 
accusations  of  their  oj^ponents,  insisted  on  the  privilege  of 
reading  it,  which  had  been  previously  granted  them,  and  the 
eloquence  of  their  spokesman.  Chancellor  Briick,  finally  pre- 
vailed, and  the  privilege  was  granted,  the  time  for  the  read- 
ing being  fixed  for  the  next  day. 

Not  in  the  council  room  (the  "House"),  where  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Diet  usually  took  place,  but  in  the  "  Palace 
in  the  lower  large  apartment"  (these  are  the  words  of  the  im- 
perial herald,  Ivaspar  Sturm),  i.  e.,  in  the  chapter-room  of 
the  episcopal  palace,  where  the  Emperor  sojourned,  was  the 
meeting  held,  on  Saturday,  June  25th,  at  3  P.  M.  The  two 
Saxon  chancellors.  Dr.  Greg.  Briick  and  Dr.  Chr.  Beyer,  one 
with  the  Latin,  the  other  with  the  German  copy  of  the  Con- 
fession, entered  the  middle  space,  while  the  Evangelical  Es- 
tates, as  many  as  had  the  courage  to  make  an  open  confession 
of  the  evangelical  cause,  arose  from  their  seats.  The  Em- 
peror desired  to  hear  the  Latin  copy  read.  But  after  Elector 
John  had  reminded  him  that  the  Diet  was  held  on  German 
soil,  and  expressed  his  hope  to  have  the  Emperor  permit  the 
reading  in  German,  the  permission  was  granted." 

Thereupon  Dr.  Beyer  read  the  Confession.  It  took  about 
two  hours,  but  he  read  so  clearly  and  distinctly  that  the  many 
who  had  not  gained  admittance,  and  stood  in  the  outside 
court,  understood  every  word.**  Then  the  two  copies  were 
presented.     The  Latin  one  was  taken  by  the  Emperor  him- 


»»  Jonas  to  Luther,  in  E  n  d  e  r  s  ,  VIIT,  26.  B  r  fi  c  k  ,  p.  52.     C.  R.  II.  128. 

B»Coelestin,    Hist.    Comitiorum,    in   Seckendorf   II,    170. 

•"The  impression  on  the  opponents,  C.  R.  II,  143,  145.  150,  154.  E  n  d  e  rs  , 
VIII,  66  sqq.  D  o  b  e  1 ,  Memmingen  IV,  40.  B  i  n  t  e  r  1  m  ,  Der  Reichstag  zu 
Augsb.,    etc.,    Du.s.seldorf,    1S44. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.  191 

self;  the  German  he  gave  to  the  imperial  Chancellor,  the 
Elector  of  Mayence,"  and  at  the  same  time  prohibited  the 
publication  of  the  Confession. 

Immediately  after  the  presentation  a  complete  copy  was 
sent  to  Luther/'  Although  he  would  surely  have  expressed 
many  things  otherwise,  and  probably  more  sharply,  and  found 
too  great  concessions  in  it  (Pro  mea  persona,  plus  satis, 
cessum  est  in  ista  Apologia,  see  Enders,  viii,  42),  and  missed 
clear  statements  on  purgatory,  worship  of  saints,  and  espe- 
cially on  "  the  Pope  as  the  Antichrist,"  he  nevertheless  gave 
the  same  full  approval  to  the  work  as  a  whole,  as  he  had  done 
to  the  section  he  had  seen  before,  and  saw  in  it  a  fulfilment 
of  Ps.  119:  46,  the  word  of  Scripture,  which  the  first  copies 
printed  in  Augsburg  and  then  regularly  all  printed  copies 
bore  as  a  motto.  And  once,  later  on,  he  actually  said : 
Catechismus,  tabulae,  Confessio  Augustana  mea,*^  which,  of 
course,  must  be  looked  npon  only  as  a  most  emphatic  assent 
to  the  contents  of  the  Confession.  He  had  taken  part  in  the 
elaboration  of  the  Torgau  articles,  and  it  is  not  to  be  doubted 
that  Melanchthon  had  discussed  with  him  before  the  Diet, 
all  other  matters  that  might  yet  enter  into  consideration.** 
Neither  is  there  any  doubt  that  in  tlie  last  redaction  of  the 
Articles  of  Faith  he  reached  back  to  the  Marburg  and  Schwa- 
bach  articles  of  Luther ;  but  Luther's  direct  participation  in 
the  framing  of  the  Confession  was  very  slight.  Neverthe- 
less, we  cannot  say,  as  has  been  said  repeatedly  and  without 
proof,  that  un-Lntheran  or  Melanchthonian  ideas  in  the 
stricter  sense  have  come  into  it. 


«'  S  p  a  1  a  t  i  n  ,  Annalen  ed.  Cyprian  p.  139.  Seekendorf  II,  170.  J.  T. 
M  ii  1  1  e  r  ,  587.     K  o  1  d  e  .  Neue  Aug.  Studien,  N.  K.  Z.  S.,  XVII,  p.  738. 

«2C.    R.   II,    140.      Enders,    VIII,    33. 

"^This   is   the   original   form   of   the   Tabletalk   in    Kroker,   Leipzig,    190.3. 

"  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  June  27th,  1530,  C.  R.  II,  146.  Enders  VIII, 
39  :  "  The  things  were  deliberated  before,  a.s  you  know,  but  they  alway.s  turn 
out  otherwise  in  battle-line."  To  Camerariu.s  Aug.  27th  (C.  R.  II,  334)  :  "We 
have  so  far  granted  nothing  to  the  adversaries,  besides  those  things  which 
Luther  thought  ought  to  be  rendered,  the  matter  being  well  and  carefully  de- 
liberated before  the  meeting."     C'p.  Th  .  Ko  Ide.  Alteste  Red.,  p.  74  sq. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

mela:n^chtiiox's    unsuccessful   attempts 
as  a  diplomatist.     kolde's  essay. 

Melanchthon  at  Augsburg — Characterized  by  Kolde — Brieger's  Defense  of  Me- 
lanchthon — Why  Brieger  is  Wrong — The  Documentary  Evidence — Melanch- 
thon's  Lack  of  Sympathy  with  the  Hated  ZwingUans — Was  the  final  Comple- 
tion of  the  Confession  begun  before  June  21st? — Brieger  says  it  was — Kolde's 
Reply — Melanchthon' s  Negotiations  with  Rome  Rejected — The  Consequences 
of  their  Rejection — Melanchthon' s  Four  Points  as  Formulated  by  Valdes. 

AMOXG  the  unpleasant  episodes  in  the  life  of  Melanch- 
thon that  have  been  rocks  of  offence  for  many,  must 
be  mentioned  his  peculiar  conduct  in  the  transactions  with 
the  imperial  secretary,  iVlphonso  Valdes,  and  the  papal 
legate,  Lorenzo  Campeggi,  during  the  Diet  of  Augsburg. 
Even  in  more  recent  times  caustic  judgment  has  been  passed 
upon  the  episode,  and  I,  too,  on  the  basis  of  renewed  investi- 
gations and  with  all  endeavor  to  be  just  to  him,  or  rather 
(to  speak  correctly)  to  understand  him,  could  not  refrain 
from  concluding  that  IMelanchtlion  (to  confine  ourselves  first 
to  his  relations  with  Valdes)  lost  heart  completely  in  the  face 
of  the  menacing  condition  into  which  the  Evangelical  party 
was  thrown  unexpectedly  right  after  the  arrival  of  the  Em- 
peror ;  that  he,  for  his  own  person,  entered  into  private  nego- 
tiations with  the  imperial  secretaries,  and  during  the  course 
of  these  negotiations  persuaded  himself  that  perhaps  it  would 

192 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  193 

not  become  necessary  to  present  a  confession,  and  that,  there- 
fore, he  dallied  with  its  completion/ 

While  a  number  of  distinguished  investigators  assented 
to  these  conclusions,  or  independently  reached  the  same  re- 
sults,^ Th.  Brieger  more  recently  opposed  them.  In  a  mono- 
graph entitled  ''Zur  Geschichte  des  Augsburger  Reichstages 
von,  15^0,"^  he  critically  reviewed  in  his  well-known,  ex- 
tremely careful  manner  the  negotiations  with  Valdes  (and 
Campeggi),  and  reached  results,  which,  if  they  were  conclu- 
sive, would  be  of  no  mean  importance  to  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  Confession,  and  which  at  any  rate  compel 
a  new  investigation  of  the  matter. 

His  opinion,  to  preface  the  most  important  points,  is  this: 
1.  The  negotiations  of  Melanchthon  with  the  imperial  secre- 
taries were  opened  by  them  and  not  by  Melanchthon.  (On 
this  point  Brieger  returns  to  the  view  formerly  defended  by 
Maurenbrecher.*)  2.  The  negotiations  were  carried  on  by 
Melanchthon,  not  upon  his  own  authority,  but  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Elector's  counsellors.  3.  If  Melanchthon  replies 
to  the  I^uremberg  delegates  who  were  urging  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  complete  confession,  ''the  matter  will  probably 
not  come  to  such  a  far-reaching  action,  but  will  be  withdrawn 
and  settled  more  briefly,"  it  must  not  be  understood  that  he 
intended  in  accordance  with  the  Emperor's  wishes  to  accom-, 
plish  a  compromise  on  the  quiet,  and  if  possible,  without 
"verbose  public  hearing  and  discussion,"  but  that  it  has  refer- 
ence to  the  proposal  made  by  the  Margrave's  chancellor,  Vog- 
ler  (who,  in  order  to  change  the  Emperor's  intention  in  re- 


>  Cf.  Th.  Koldc,  M.  Luther  II,  343.  Also  Kolde.  Die  Aiigsb.  Conf.. 
p.  7.  Prot.  Realencykl.  II,  245.  Sharper  and  not  always  just,  Virck, 
Melanehthon's  polit.  SteUung  auf.  d.  Relchstage  zu  Augsb.  Z.  K.  G.  IX  (1888), 
pp.  92  scq. 

2  Of.  Fr.  V.  Bezold,  Gesch.  d.  deutsch.  Ref.  Berlin,  1890,  p.  621.  K  a  w  - 
erau,  Lehrbuch  d.  Kirchengesch.  Ill  (Reform,  u.  Gengenref.  2  A.)  1899,  p. 
97.  Karl  M  ii  1  1  e  r  ,  Kircheuge.sch.  II.  2.  Freiburg  1902,  p.  372  seq.  Georg 
E  11  i  n  g  e  r,   Phil.   Melanchthon.    Berlin,    1902,   pp.    268   seq. 

^  Leipzig,   1903.      Programm. 

*Wilh.  Maureubrecher,  Gesch.  d.  Kath.  Ref.  I,  Nordlingen,  1880, 
pp.   287   seq. 


Idi         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

gard  to  the  matter  of  preaching,  advised,  on  June  16th,  "to 
present  to  him  as  an  intermediate  action  the  Articles  of 
FaWi"),  and  that  the  briefest  possible  confession  which  he 
had  in  mind  was  in  reality  this  confession  which  was  com- 
posed of  only  19  articles,  and  is  still  extant  in  the  Ansbach 
manuscript  and  other  copies  from  the  same  period.  Hence 
the  completion  of  the  manuscript  was  not  delayed  even  for 
a  day,  and  Melanchthon  is  to  be  exonerated  from  every  charge 
of  indecision. 

Brieger's  acute  presentation,  from  which,  as  always  in  his 
works,  much  can  be  learned,  at  first  sight  looks  very  convinc- 
ing on  account  of  its  logical  form  of  statement ;  but  a  careful 
investigation  of  his  argument  must  lead  to  the  opposite  view, 
as  is  to  be  shown  in  the  following:" 

Immediately  upon  the  Emperor's  entrance  into  Augsburg 
we  find  Melanchthon,  according  to  authentic  reports,  in  nego- 
tiation '  with  the  imperial  secretary,  Alphonso  Valdes.  ^ 

How  did  he  come  to  do  so  ? 

Brieger,  as  is  elsewhere  stated,*  considers  it  indubitable  that 
these  negotiations  were  begun  not  by  IMclanclithon,  but  by  the 
followers  of  the  Emperor:  whether  Valdes,  the  ardent  admirer 
of  Erasmus,  independently  entered  into  correspondence  with 
the  Wittenberg  Humanist,  and  the  Emperor  then  made  use 
of  the  naturally  resulting  opportunity  to  question  Melanch- 
thon, and  through  him  to  influence  the  treatment  of  the  reli- 
gious matter;  or  whether,  as  is  more  probable,  the  imperial 
secretary  from  the  beginning  acted  under  orders  from  his 
lord,  who  by  all  means  wished  to  settle  the  religious  question 
"in  private  and  in  quiet,"  ratlier  than  to  have  it  treated  at 
the  Diet  in  the  manner  offered  in  his  call  to  a  diet,  viz.,  to 


*  I  would  note  the  following  was  ready  in  first  draft,  before  I  received  new 
material   in  the  "  First  Draft  of  tne  Augustana." 

•Will  be  treated  below. 

^Compare  on  him  and  related  literature  the  article  of  Ed.  Bohmer, 
Prot.  Realencykl.  2  A.  Vol.  16,  276  seq.  The  article  lacks  clearness  and  over- 
estimates Valdes'  love  of  peace. 

»  Sec  Chap.   XVII   of  this  work. 


KOLDE    ON   ME  LAN  CUT  HON.  lur. 

hear  the  "opinion  and  judgment"  of  both  sides,  and  then  to 
effect  a  compromise  (p.  5). 

Let  ns  look  at  the  situation.  We  know  that  under  Cam- 
peggi's  influence  and  that  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  and 
other  Catholic  j)rinces,  and  perhaps  also  under. the  impres- 
sion caused  by  John  Eck's  challenge,  the  disposition  of  the 
Emperor  toward  the  Evangelical  party  liad  become  quite 
different  from  what  it  appeared  to  be  in  the  call  to  the  Diet. 
We  know  further  that  the  secrfet  presentation  of  his  personal 
Confession  of  Faith  (which  was  only  a  poor  Latin  paraphrase 
of  the  Schwabach  Articles)  had  met  with  no  success  at  the 
imperial  court,  and  that  the  Emperor,  while  still  at  Inns- 
briick,  demanded  that  evangelical  preaching  be  stopped. 

When  Luther's  sharp  pamphlet,  ^'Vermahnung  an  die 
Geistlichen  versammelt  auf  dem  Reichstag  zu  Augsburg,"' 
ap])eared,  it  only  added  oil  to  the  fuel.  It  had  har<lly  reached 
Augsburg,  June  Tth,  when  Jacob  Sturm  sent  it  to  Strass- 
burg;  it  was  at  once  made  known  at  the  Emperor's  court, 
and  the  Emperor  commanded  that  it  be  prohibited  in  Augs- 
burg.'" !N^ow  came  the  Emperor  himself.  With  him  came 
the  demand  that  the  Protestants  should  take  part  in  the 
Corpus  Christi  processions,  and  the  renewal  of  the  prohibi- 
tion to  preach,  and  all  that,  in  the  evident  interest  not  only  to 
do  justice  to  the  wishes  of  Campeggi,  but  also  to  intimidate 
the  Protestants  and  to  give  them  to  understand  for  the  present 
that  the  Emperor  did  not  purpose  to  brook  any  alteration  of 
the  traditional  forms  of  worship.  And  at  this  moment,  he 
claims,  Valdes,  only  because  he  was  an  Erasmian,  approached 
Melanchthon,  though  in  a  tricky  numner,  to  sound  him  and 
use  him  as  a  tool  to  carry  out  the  plans  of  the  Emperor.  But 
who  can  prove  that  the  things  which  the  imperial  secretary 
announced  during  the  negotiations  as  the  Emperor's  purpose, 
to  settle  the  religious  questions  in  "quiet  and  secrecy,"  were 


'  E.   A.''  24,   356   seqq.      Cf.   Th.      K  o  1  d  e  ,   M.  Luther  11,   330, 
"  Cf.  Strassburg's  Pollt.  Korrespondenz  I,  451  and  455. 


19G         TFIE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

originally  his  plan  and  not  developed  as  such  during  the  dis- 
cussions with  Melanchthon? 

Brieger  appeals  for  his  view,  that  the  initiative  was  made 
by  Valdes,  to  the  report  of  the  ISTnremberg  delegates,  i.  e., 
to  what  they  learned  of  the  matter.  This  may  be  so  inter- 
preted;  but  when  they  write:  "We  are  informed  that  Al- 
phonsus  Waldesius,  one  of  the  principal  secretaries  of  H. 
Imp.  Maj.,  several  times  invited  Philip  Melanchthon  to  his 
house,""  it  does  not  mean  that  the  instigation  cannot  have 
been  made  by  Melanchthon. 

Then,  too,  the  reference  to  Briick's  history  of  the  Diet,* 
in  which  he  points  to  the  fact  that  several  of  "the  most  promi- 
nent (wegernsten)  of  the  papal  party"  repeatedly  approached 
the  theologians  of  the  Christian  estates,  invited  them  to  their 
quarters,  and  pretended  that  they  would  by  no  means  hinder 
the  gospel,  and  spoke  to  them  of  the  controversial  articles, 
etc.,  does  not  affect  the  question,  for  Brieger  overlooks  the 
fact  that  Briick  states:  ^^  Especially  he  fore  his  imperial 
majesty  came  to  Augsburg,"  and  nothing  s])eaks  for  the  fact 
that  Briick  also  had  in  mind  the  imperial  secretary,  since 
we  have  knowledge  of  others  who  proceeded  in  the  manner 
described  by  Briick,  e.  g.,  Cochleeus,  Usingen,  Marius.' 

Melanchthon's  own  statement  must  decide.  On  June  19th 
he  writes  to  Myconius :  ^^Ego  pertenfavi  nnius  atque  alterius 
ex  Ilispanicis  scribis  animum;  quantum  proficiam  videro." 
The  same  day  he  writes  to  Camerarius:  "Nadus  sum  His- 
panum  secretariuni,  qui  benigne  pollicetur,  et  jam  de  mea 
sententia  cum  Cesare  et  Campegio  collocutus  est."'*  Could 
Melanchthon  say  at  all  more  clearly  that  he  was  the  one  who 
sought  relations  with  the  influential  ])ersonalities,  to  insinu- 
ate to  them  his  sententia  concerning  the  prevailing  condi- 


"  C.   R.   II,  122. 

'- K  o  r  s  t  e  m  a  n  n  ,  \rchiv.  fiir  Gesch.  d.  kirchl.  Ref.,  Vol.  I.  Halle,  1S31. 
p.  19.     B  r  i  e  g  e  r,  p.  5. 

'^  O.  R.  II,  86.  Ad.  W  e  i  .s  z  in  Uffenheiraer  Nebenstunden,  p.  686.  Cf.  also 
.\.    S  p  a  h  n  ,    .loh.    Coohhvus.    Berlin    1898,    p.    1D4    seq. 

"  C.   R.   II,  118  seqq. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHOX.  197 

tioris  ?  I  ask  further :  "What  interest  could  Melanchthon 
have,  if  he  did  not  take  the  initiative,  to  create  this  impres- 
sion with  Mjconins  and  Camerarius,  contrary  to  the  truth  ?" 

And  what  we  see  Melanchthon  do  here  is  entirely  in  line 
with  what  we  can  ascertain  concerning  his  conduct  other- 
wise in  Augsburg.  It  was  a  peculiarity  of  his,  which  has 
proven  fatal  more  tlian  once,  that  the  great  theologian  tried 
to  act  the  diplomat  now  and  then,  and  with  the  best  of  in- 
tentions entered  into  negotiations  that  were  none  of  his  busi- 
ness. We  know  now  (a  thing  which  Brieger,  of  course,  could 
not  know  so  fully)  in  what  great  measure  he  put  his  trust 
in  the  Emperor's  clemency  and  love  of  peace.  The  imperial 
call  to  a  diet  had  so  completely  captivated  him  that  he  at 
first  entertained  no  fears  of  the  influence  of  the  papal  legate, 
Campeggi,  whom  in  contrast  to  Cajetanus,  whose  call  was 
for  a  while  rumored,  he  styled  a  virum  pcritum  rerum 
civilium.^"  What  concerned  him  most  was  to  prove  that  his 
elector  had  the  pure  doctrine  preached  in  this  country,  had 
abolished  but  few  abuses  which  were  recognized  as  such  by 
the  prudent  ones  among  the  opponents,  pursued  no  warlike 
policies,  but  always  opposed  such,  aimed  only  at  peace  and 
concord,  and  had  absolutely  no  sympathy  with  the  hated 
Zwinglians,  who  were  always  plotting  war  and  revolution. 

Cochlseus  afterwards,  in  his  hateful,  exaggerating  man- 
ner, accused  Melanchthon  of  pretending  to  the  utmost  love 
of  peace  and  thus  forcing  an  entrance  in  Augsburg  into  the 
residences  of  private  individuals,  and  also  of  cardinals,  and 
even  to  tlie  court  of  the  Emperor ;  "'  but  his  assertions  are  not 


>5  C.  R.  II,  40  and  42. 

^"Joannis  Cochlei,  Philippicse  quatuor  in  Apologiam  Philippi  Mel- 
anchthonis.  Lips.  1534,  A  iij  ■>  :  (Translated)—"  In  the  first  place  indeed 
Philippus  ignores  his  own  rudeness  and  tactlessness,  for  at  Augsburg  he  did 
not  only  publicly  pretend  that  he  was  a  lover  of  peace  and  concord  and  zealous 
for  the  same  ;  but  he  also  on  his  own  initiative  liept  running  here  and 
there,  bursting  into  and  entering  not  only  the  homes  and  entertainment  places 
of  private  individuals,  but  also  the  palaces  of  cardinals  and  other  princes 
and  even  the  M.  T.  court  seeking  by  an  altogether  too  insidious  circuit  whom 
he  might  devour  by  his  hypocrisy.  And  indeed,  by  his  wiles  and  simulated 
blandishments  he  deceived  not  a  few,  while  he  affirmed  here  and  there  in 
conferences  and  meetings  that  he  could  easily  restore  the  peace  of  the  church 
if  only  these  three  things  were   granted   to   his   friends,    the  sacrament  to   the 


198         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

pure  inventions,  for  Melanchthon  did  certainly  carry  on  pri- 
vate transactions  with  a  great  number  of  people.  As  early  as 
the  first  days  of  June,  i.  e.,  during  the  time  when  danger  ap- 
peared more  clearly,  he  carried  on  a  most  secretly-kept  (and 
now  evidently  lost)  correspondence  with  the  cardinal  of 
Mayence,  as  we  learn  from  a  hitherto  unprinted  letter  "  of 
John  Rurer  to  And.  Althamer,  dated  June  4th.  In  this  he 
prayed  the  cardinal  to  use  his  influence  that  the  matter  might 
not  lead  to  war. 

His  friendly  intercourse  with  Catholic  theologians,  such 
as  Cochlscus,  Usingen  and  Marius,  of  course,  was  started  by 
them.  The  cardinal  of  Salzburg,  with  whom  Melanchthon 
had  a  long  conversation  but  a  few  days  before  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  Confession,  also  seems  to  have  invited  him." 

It  is  not  quite  so  sure  to  me  that  it  was  also  without  his 
initiative  that  he  had  the  very  remarkable  conversation  on 
June  13th  with  Henry  of  Brunswick.  At  any  rate,  he  took 
advantage  of  it — it  was  in  the  very  days  in  which  he  was 
negotiating  with  the  Landgrave — to  give  very  tactless  ex- 
pression in  the  presence  of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  to  his 
revulsion  against  the  intentions  and  plans  of  Philip  and  his 
and  Jacob  Sturm's  efforts  at  confederation.  He  rejoiced  to 
receive  the  promise  from  the  Duke  that  the  two-fold  form  of 
the  sacrament,  the  marriage  of  priests,  monastic  liberty,  the 
abolishment  of  paid  masses  (missa?  qusestuaria?)  and 
freedom  of  foods  were  those  points  that  could  not  rightly  be 
condemned,  and  that  harmony  could  be  reached,  if  they  were 


]aity  sub  utraque,  marriage  for  the  priests,  and  the  use  and  communication 
of  the  mass.  That  iu  aU  other  things  his  friends  would  be  subject  to  the 
bishops  and  prelates  throughout  and  obedient  to  their  word,"  etc.  C  o  c  h  - 
1  a  e  u  s  tells  the  same  as  early  as  15.31  in  his  Petitio  Philippl  Melanchthonis. 
Ad  R.  D.  Card.  Campegium  Augustae  scripta,  etc.,  MDXXXI.  In  the  letter  of 
dedication  we  find  the  following  story :  "  Besides  I  beard  the  R.  D.  Dr.  John 
Fabri  say  there  to  a  certain  nobleman  from  Meissen,  in  my  presence,  that  he 
would  say  to  Philipp,  unless  he  ceased  frequenting  the  hotels  of  the  Spaniards 
and  excusing  and  proving  his  and  Luther's  writings  to  them,  he  himself  would 
publicly  hang   up   his   most   absurd   and   hateful    errors  on   the   church   doors." 

"Kolde,  Alt.   Red.,    Beilage   I,   p.   108. 

"Melanchthon  reports  to  Luther  June  25th  (C.  R.  II,  126).  According  to 
the  report  of  Jonas  (Kolde,  Anal.  Lutherana  140)  :  The  Salzburg  Cardinal 
called   Mr.    Phil.   Melanchthon   through   Wolffgang   Stromer,   the   Nurembergian. 


KOLDE    OX   MELANCHTHON.  199 

adopted,  at  least  with  the  pre-supposition  that  the  Zwinglians 
who  wished  to  abolish  the  sacrament  completely,  were  not  to 
be  included.  " 

This  clearly  shows  the  unvarying  point  in  the  private  ne- 
gotiations of  Melanchthon.  It  is  essentially  the  same  that  he 
presented  a  few  days  later  to  the  imperial  secretary.  And  it 
may  be  presumed  also  (w^e  state  it  merely  as  a  presumption) 
what  moved  him  especially  to  convince  the  entourage  of  the 
Emperor  of  the  innocuousness  of  the  Protestants.  As  he  him- 
self was  averse  to  confederation  (and  the  cunning  insinuation 
of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  concerning  tlie  plots  of  the  Land- 
grave had  only  confirmed  him  in  this),  he  had  gained  the  con- 
viction from  the  elector's  epistolary  negotiations  with  the  Em- 
peror, that  Charles  V.  did,  indeed,  wish  to  make  peace  with 
his  lord  sed  hac  conditione,  lua  iMrj^efxiav  e)(Oi  crfjOL/Aa^/av. 
Thus  he  wrote  to  Luther  on  June  ISth.'"  And  just  now  the 
elector  Avas  on  the  point  of  giving  up  his  long-maintained  iso- 
lated position  in  the  religious  question  and  to  unite  with  the 
other  evangelical  estates.  And  as  matters  stood,  Melanch- 
thon  himself  must  desire  to  win  the  Landgrave,  for  otherwise 
he  would  be  irretrievably  driven  into  the  arms  of  the  Zwing- 
lians. But  he  must  have  learned  so  much  from  the  negotia- 
tions with  Philip  that  took  place  in  these  days,  that  in  this 
event  the  antithesis  to  the  Zwinglian  conception  in  the  con- 
fession must  be  softened  to  the  utmost.  This  increased  the 
danger  of  being  confused  with  the  Zwinglians.  But  even  the 
more  tolerant  Romans,  and  he  had  provided  amply  for  that, 
were  not  inclined  to  tolerate  these.  Henry,  of  Brunswick, 
had  confirmed  this  to  him  with  clear  words."'  In  this  con- 
suming anxiety  (psene  consumer  miserimis  curis,  he  wrote  to 


"  Report  of  Jonas  to  Luther,  Anal.  Luth.,  p.  133  ;  E  n  d  e  r  s  VII.  380.  Me- 
lanchtbon  presents  an  essentially  different  report  to  Luther,  concerning  the 
same  conversation.  E  n  d  e  r  s  VII,  383.  Luther  claimed  to  know  that  he  had 
been  invited  to  table  by  the  Duke ;  but  there  is  nothing  about  it  in  the 
letters    written   to   him.      E  n  d  e  r  s    VIII,    82. 

=">  Mel.  to  Luther,  E  n  d  e  r  s  VIII,  383. 

"  Cf.  First  Draft,  etc. 


200         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Luther)"  it  might  appear  to  him  to  be  his  duty  to  act  as 
intermediary  on  his  own  responsibility  and  enter  into  nego- 
tiations with  the  followers  of  the  Emperor. 

We  can  even  recognize  the  method  which  he  pursued  to 
attain  his  end.  First  he  renewed  the  relations  with  the  Flem- 
ish secretary,  KorncUus  ScJieppcr,  known  to  the  Wittenber- 
gers  previously,  and  whom  Brieger  wrougly  sets  aside  as 
having  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter."^  According  to  the 
report  of  Jonas  to  Luther  on  June  18th,  we  may  assume  that 
the  first  conversation  in  which  Jonas  also  took  part,  probably 
took  place  on  Corpus  Christi  day,  June  16th."  On  a  second 
occasion  Jonas  reports  a  meeting  with  Schepper  on  June 
25th;  but  it  is  not  quite  certain  whether  this  really  has  refer- 
ence to  a  second  conversation.  But  that  it  was  not  Schepper 
who  sought  the  conversation  may  be  concluded  from  jMelanch- 
thon's  remark:  ''Videtur  singulari  diligentia  cavere,  ne 
veniat  in  suspicionem  nostra  amicitiee."'°  The  things  which 
Melanchthon  on  this  occasion  learned  concerning  the  threat- 


22  Jonas  to  Luther,  T  h  .  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Anal.  Luth.,  133.  E  n  d  e  r  s  VII,  381. 
But  that  they  would  never  subscribe  with  those  who  take  away  the  sacrament 
of  the  Eucharist,  as  the  Zwinglians  do. 

2'  B  r  i  e  g  e  r  ,  p.  3.  note  1 :  "  Melanchthon's  conversation  with  the  Flemish 
secretary  Cornel  von  Schepper  is  of  no  importance  to  our  subject."  But  though 
Schepper  was  only  the  Dutch  secretary  and  had  no  direct  connection  with 
the  imperial  government,  yet  he  was  well  informed  on  the  state  of  the 
matter.  We  know  that  he  stood  in  close  relations  with  Valdes,  who  entrusted 
to  him  the  revision  of  the  writing  (Pro  religione  Christiana  res  gestae  in 
Comitiis  Augusta  Vindel.  habitis,  A.  D.  1530),  which  above  all  was  the  cause 
of  Bnick's  report  on  the  Diet  (Forstemann,  Archiv.  I,  1831),  since  he 
wrote  to  Dantiscus  :  "I  am  sending  a  report  of  the  things  done  in  this  city  with 
the  Lutherans  which  I  pray  you  to  read  in  company  with  Dr.  Cornelius  If 
he  is  pre.sent  and  to  add  or  omit  whatever  is  to  be  added  or  omitted  (Ed. 
Bohmer  in  Art.  Valdes  in  Prot.  Real  Encykl.  2  ed.  Vol.  XVI,  p.  279,  note). 

-'Enders  VII,  387.  To  this  Mel.  on  June  19th.  Enders  VIII,  2: 
"  Cornelius  says  that  he  had  some  hope  for  peace  while  Mercurinus  was  living. 
He  says  that  since  M.  is  dead,  there  is  nobody  at  court  who  has  any  au- 
thority to  be  the  author  of  peace.  Cornelius  plays  in  his  own  way  and 
seems  to  take  extraordinary  care  not  to  be  suspected  of  friendship  with 
us.  He  is  of  no  use  to  us  at  all.  There  is  another  Spanish  secretary 
here,  who  blandly  promises  and  has  already  conferred  in  regard  to  my 
sententia  with  the  emperor  and  Campegius."  The  same  day  he  wrote  t-^ 
Camerarius,  C.  R.  II,  119.  "Cornelius  Schepper  affirms  that  he  had  go^'i 
hope  of  peace  so  long  as  Mercurinus  lived.  That  since  his  death  there  is 
no  author  of  peace  at  court  who  is  worthy  in  authority.  I  got  hold  of  the 
Spani.sh  secretary  who  promised  faithfully  and  has  already  spoken  concerning 
my  view  to  the  emperor  and  Campegius."  To  Myconius.  ibid.  June  19th:  "I 
have  tested  the  opinion  of  one  and  the  other  of  the  Spanish  delegates." 

«^  E  n  de  rs  VIII,  24. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  201 

ening  disposition  at  the  imperial  court  had  a  crushing  effect 
upon  him.  Jonas  adds  directly  to  his  report  to  Lnther :  "D. 
Philippns,  nt  nosti  virum  niisere  discrnciatur  illis  tantae  caus- 
sae  curis  et  solicitudinibus."  "' 

The  hope  of  negotiating  with  Campeggi  is  now  completely 
destroyed.  He  is  the  very  one,  as  M.  now  learned,  who  is 
stirring  to  war  against  the  Protestants.  But  altJiough  noth- 
ing can  be  found  in  the  reports  to  indicate  that  he  has  been 
given  hope  in  this  direction,  he  clings  to  his  old  confidence  in 
the  Emperor  and  his  clemency:  Xihil  in  aula  Casaris  ipso 
mitius  Caesare."  Yes,  he  even  claims  to  have  heard  from 
kindly  disposed  courtiers  nihil  spei  se  habere  de  cognitione, 
i.e.,on\y  upon  investigation  of  the  matter  after  examining  the 
evangelical  "opinion  and  view,"  the  evangelical  confession. 

There  is  only  one  recourse  left,  and  that  is  to  endeavor  to 
maintain  the  Emperor  in  his  benevolent  disposition.  Hence 
he  determines,  and  he  must  have  done  so  at  once,  since  on 
the  19th  he  reports  concerning  the  negotiations  with  the  Em- 
peror and  the  legates,  to  apply  to  the  much  more  influential 
personality,  the  imperial  secretary,  Alfonso  Valdes,  in  order 
to  learn  more  from  him,  and  above  all,  to  acquaint  him  of 
his  sententia,  and,  if  possible,  to  influence  the  Emperor 
through  him.  And  he  succeeded  in  getting  hold  of  the  secre- 
tary :  N actus  sum  Hispanum.  In  view  of  this  statement  the 
remark  in  the  letter  of  the  oSTurembergians,  which  was  writ- 
ten only  after  the  negotiations  had  progressed  further  (that 
"Waldesius  .  .  .  invited  Melanchthon  several  times"),  can 
occupy  only  a  secondary  importance. 

I  must  also  maintain  that  at  least  his  first  visit  to  Valdes 
M'as  kept  relatively  secret,  though  Melanchthon  mentions  the 
matter,  in  very  general  terms,  it  is  true,  almost  unintelligibly, 
in  letters  to  Luther  and  Camerarius,  i.  e.,  to  those  outside, 
for  Jonas,  who  was  accustomed  to  gossip  in  his  letters  about 
everything  he  found  out,  does  not  seem  to  have  learned  about 


=^E  nde  rs  VII,  S87. 

-■'  C.  R.  117.     Also   M  e  n  i  u  s  .    See  B  i  n  d  s  e  i  1 ,  Supplem,,  p.  61. 


203         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

it,  and  only  mentions  the  conversation  with  Schepper.  "  I 
also  consider  it  altogether  out  of  the  question  that  Melanch- 
thon  should  have  acted  in  harmony  with  the  counsellors  of  the 
elector.  Briick,  the  chancellor,  whom  we  know  to  have  his 
hand  in  the  game  everywhere,  knew  him  well  enough  at  that 
time,  to  be  sure  that  this  timid  theologian,  who  could  be 
startled  by  a  mere  threat,  was  not  the  proper  person  to  under- 
take such  a  momentous  political  negotiation. 

But  whfit  was  Mclanchthons  sententia  on  the  state  of 
affairs,  and  what  came  of  the  negotiations?  This  we  learn  in 
the  first  place  from  the  report  of  the  ^N'uremberg  delegates, 
dated  Sunday,  June  21st.  We  must  have  it  before  us  to 
judge  it  properly.     It  reads  thus:"^ 

^  It  must  be  bbserved  that  the  vigilant  Strassburgian,  who  had  also 
ferreted  out  the  secret  undertaking  of  the  Schwabach  Articles  to  Innsbriick 
(  L,  w  i  n  g  1  i  .  opp.  VIII,  458  ;  V  i  r  C  k  ,  Politische  Korrespondenz,  I,  446),  did 
not  learn  anything  of  the  matter. 

"  C.  R.  II,  122.  The  items  here  given  are  confirmed  by  an  oft-printed 
paper,  "  Schrift  Aus  Augsburg."  It  is  first  found  in  the  Wittenberg  ed. 
IX,  409,  then  in  the  remaining  Luther  editions  to  Walch  (XVI,  873  seq. 
912,  936),  then  in  perhaps  more  early  form  in  Bretschneider,  C.  R.,  X,  12.") 
seq.  The  passage  on  the  relations  with  Valdes  has  been  worked  up  by 
Aurifaber  in  his  report  with  few  changes.  If  we  look  at  the  contents  of  this 
report  (which  since  the  Leipzig  Luther  edition  XX,  202,  is  ascribed  to  Spalatin, 
whether  correctly  or  not.  cannot  be  determined),  we  find  that  it  was  written 
on  different  days.  The  beginning  to  "  God  may  send  His  Holy  Spirit ''  Wttbg. 
IX,  410.  C.  R.  X.  128,  was  written  Sat.,  .Tune  IS,  Cf.  "Now  Maj.  is  on 
Sat."  and  "  On  Mon.  the  Diet  will  be  opened."  The  following,  to  which 
Bretschneider  wrongly  adds  the  note :  Haec  omnia  quae  jam  sequuntur  in 
opp.  Lutheri  non  leguntur,"  was  not  written  until  Mon.  or  Tues.  Cf.  "On 
said  Saturday."  "  On  Saturday,  Alfonsus."  "  On  Sunday  H.  Imp.  Maj." 
"  On  Mon.  they  will  hear  the  mass."  "  So  much  has  been  done  till  now." 
The  Nuremberg  report  and  this  paper  therefore  were  written,  so  far  as  they 
refer  to  Valdes,  at  exactly  the  same  time.  The  paper  reports  the  following 
(C.  R.  X,  129)  :  "Alfonsus  the  Chancellor  of  H.  Imp.  Maj.  in  Spain  and 
Cornelius  have  had  several  pleasant  conversations  with  Philipp  and  told  him 
that  the  Spaniards  had  been  informed  that  they  did  not  believe  in  God  nor 
the  Holy  Trinity  nor  Christ  nor  Mary,  so  that  they  thought  that  if  they 
killed  a  Lutheran  they  did  God  a  greater  service  than  by  killing  a  Turk.  He 
says  that  though  he  conversed  much  with  them,  he  persuaded  few.  The  re.st 
remained  in  their  own  belief. 

On  Saturday  Alfo)i.<sus  sent  for  PhlUppus  and  informed  him  that  in  the 
morning  he  had  visited  H.  Imp.  Maj.  and  for  a  long  time  had  no  more 
suitable  time  or  place  to  speak  with  11.  Maj.  and  that  he  had  informed 
H.  Maj.  concerning  all  the  Lutheran  articles  and  that  they  do  not  believe 
contrary  to  the  church.  Then  the  emperor  said  "  Quid  volunt  de  Monachis," 
etc.,  and  commanded  Alfonso  to  tell  Philipp  to  send  in  brief  and  without  long 
discourses  ihe  articles  upon  which  they  insisted.  Then  that  Philip  did  so 
and  also  asked  Alfonso  to  go  to  the  legate.  This  was  also  done,  and  now 
the  greatest  objection  is  in  regard  to  the  mass.  God  be  praised!  It  appears 
now  as  if  the  emperor  were  willing  to  help.  God  has  used  His  means  on  him 
also."  An  essential  difference  lies  in  this,  that  the  paper  says  that  Me- 
lanchthon  really  wrote  the  articles  and  that  Valdes  after  the  Saturday  meet- 
ing delivered  these  written  articles  to  the  legate. 


KOLDE    ON    MELANCHTHON.  203 

"We  are  informed  that  Alfonsus  Waldesius,  one  of  the 
"most  prominent  secretaries  of  H.  I.  Maj.,  several  times  in- 
"vited  Philips  MelancJdhon  to  his  house,  treated  with  him 
"concerning  the  Lutheran  matter,  and  finally  asked  him  to 
"report  what  was  the  desire  of  the  Lutherans  and  how  the 
"matter  might  be  helped.    And  then  Melanchthon  reported  to 
"him  about  the  matter  as  much  as  had  been  considered  orally 
"and  in  set  speeches  about  in  this  manner:     The  Lutheran 
"matter  is  by  no  means  so  extensive  and  out  of  the  way  as 
"H.  I.  Maj.  was  perhaps  informed,  and  the  controversy  prin- 
"cipally  concerned  the  two-fold  form  of  the  sacrament,  the 
"marriage  of  priests  and  monks,  and  the  mass,  namely,  that 
"the   Lutherans   could   not   approve   of  the   special   private 
'/masses.    If  an  agreement  were  reached  in  regard  to  these  ar- 
"ticles,  it  was  his  opinion  that  ways  and  means  could  be 
"found  concerning  all  the  others.     Above  mentioned  Alfon- 
"sus  Waldesius  had  undertaken  to  present  this  report  to  H. 
"Imp.  Maj.,  and  on  Saturday  had  again  sent  for  Philippus 
"and  announced  to  him  that  H.  Imp.  Maj.  had  been  glad  to 
"hear  it  and  was  well  pleased  with  it,  and  had  asked  him, 
''Alfonso,  to  inform  the  papal  legate,  and  he  had  done  so. 
"The  legate  also  was  well  pleased  with  the  report,  and  did 
"not  specially  object  to  the  articles  on  the  two-fold  form  of 
"the  sacrament  or  the  marriage  of  priests  and  monks,  but 
"was  opposed  to  the  abolition  of  private  masses,  and  A  'fonsH.% 
"after  such  information,  said  finally  to  Philippus:  It  was 
"the  desire  of  H.  Imp.  Maj.  that  Philippus  should  make  a 
"brief  statement  of  the  articles  which  the  Lutherans  desired 
"and  hand  them  to  Alfonsus,  and  he  would  present  them  to 
"H.  Maj.  for  further  consideration.     But  it  was  H.  ^la]. 
"desire  that  he  should  not  state  such  matter  profusely,  but 
"very  briefly,  so  that  H.  Maj.  might  have  more  reason  to 
"take  action  toward  settling  and  ending  this  error.     11.  Maj. 
"also  thought  it  was  best  to  consider  this  matter  privately  and 
"not  in  open  argument  and  discussion,  for  such  arguments  and 
"discussions  merely  caused  further  dissension  and  no  unity. 


20 i         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

''Upon  said  request  Philippus  offered  to  consider  the  mat- 
"ter  and  write  the  statement;  but  he  desired  to-day  to  eon- 
averse  regarding  it  with  Dr.  Briick  and  other  theologians, 
"•then  to  write  a  draft  for  the  elector,  and  if  he  approved,  and 
"considered  it,  to  give  it  to  Alfonso."  Here  follows  in  the 
original  ^^  following  passage  which  was  omitted  by  Bretschnei- 
der,  but  is  not  unimportant,  and  describes  the  secrecy  with 
which  the  transaction  was  carried  on:  ''This  we  desired  to 
report  to  your  worthies  and  did  not  wish  it  to  be  undiscov- 
ered, though  they,  for  the  present,  wish  to  keep  it  a  secret." 
To  this  we  must  add  a  remark  of  ]\relanchthon's  reported 
by  the  Xureml)erg  delegates  on  June  IDth,  and  which  could 
not  have  been  made  until  after  his  meeting  with  Valdes  on 
June  18th :  "For  as  Philippus  Melanchthon  reports,  the 
matter  will  perhaps  not  be  carried  so  far,  but  will  be  drawn 
much  closer,  and  written  and  treated  more  briefly.  But  what- 
ever action  shall  1x3  taken,  wliether  tlie  former  [scil.  confes- 
sion] be  completed  or  a  new  one  drawn  up,  shall  be  reported 
by  us  to  your  worthies."" 

When  I  connected  this  remark,  as  I  could  not  possibly  help 
doing,  witli  the  negotiations  with  Valdes,  I  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  ^lelanchthon,  after  having  been  instructed 
by  the  Emperor  on  June  18th  to  hasten  to  present  a  list  of 
the  points  in  controversy,  for  this  very  reason  delayed  the 
completion  of  the  confession,  and  actually  believed  for  a 
while  that  its  delivery  would  not  be  insisted  upon ;  that  he 
afterwards  deemed  it  quite  proper  to  consult  with  Briick  and 
other  theologians  on  June  21st,  and  that  they  did  not  ap- 
prove of  liis  secret  agreements,  as  they  imperilled  the  legal 
status  of  the  call  to  the  Diet.'^  This  Brieger  contradicted 
in  all  principal  details. 

First  let  us  dispose  of  a  chronological  question.     Accord- 


'"  The  letters  of  the  Nuremberg  delegates  to  the  council  are  now  pre- 
served in  the  Nuremberg  City  Archives. 

»>  C.    R.    II,    112,    seq. 

»=Th.  Kolde,  M.  Luth.  II,  343;  Augsb.  Conf.  p.  7;  Pr.  Realencykl.,  II, 
245. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  205 

ing  to  Brieger  (p.  8  sq.)  the  ''work  on  the  confession  was 
not  delayed  a  single  day  by  the  negotiations  with  Valdes." 
''Since  the  last  three  days  of  the  week  were  entirely  consumed 
with  the  negotiations  caused  by  the  prohibition  to  preach," 
they  did  not  wait  till  after  the  opening  (on  Monday,  June 
20th)  till  June  21st,  but  immediately,  "Sunday  morning, 
June  19th,  began  the  completion  of  the  document  of  defence 
and  the  J^urembergians  were  immediately  consulted."  That 
the  resumption  of  the  work  in  the  confession  contrary  to  the 
accepted  view  took  place,  not  on  the  21st,  but  on  the  19th,  is 
splendidly  argued  by  Brieger  by  endeavoring  to  prove  that 
the  postscript  of  the  letter  of  the  Nurembergians,  Avhich  in- 
forms us  on  this  point,  and  is  printed  in  the  Corp.  Ref.  II, 
124,  as  an  addition  to  the  letter  of  June  21st,  in  reality  be- 
longs to  the  letter  of  June  19th.  He  correctly  observes  that 
the  council,  in  an  answer  on  June  23rd,  does  not  refer  to  the 
sending  of  Osiander  desired  in  said  postscript,  but  does  so 
on  June  25th,  where,  as  Brieger  thinks,  the  remark  "from 
your  former  writing  ",  in  contrast  with  "  your  most  recent 
writing",  (thus  the  answer  on  23rd  describes  that  of  21st) 
means  the  one  of  19th.  In  fact,  we  must  be  grateful  to 
this  acute  critic  for  touching  upon  this  point,  but  his  sur- 
mise is  erroneous,  though  he  cannot  be  made  responsible 
for  that.  The  postscript'^  in  question  actually  belongs  to  the 
letter  of  the  delegates  of  June  21st  (though  as  a  separate 
piece  in  the  documentary  find  it  might  just  as  well  belong  to 
any  other  letter).  On  examining  the  correspondence  books 
of  the  council  in  the  Nuremberg  Archive  we  discover  that 
the  publisher,  Vogt,  who  displayed  very  little  care,  actuaUij 
did  not  print  the  passage  in  wdiich  the  council  in  its  answer 
speaks  of  the  call  of  Osiander  (just  as  in  other  letters  he 
omitted  much  that  is  of  value  to  the  investigator) . 


^^  This  contains  a  section  in  the  original  through  which  the  reply  of  25th. 
(Vogt,  p.  19)  becomes  inteUigible.  "This  I  offered  to  report  fully  to  your 
worthies  and  if  your  worthies  will  order  me  up,  as  I  regard  needful  and  useful, 
y.  w.  will  please  write  to  me  whom  you  appointed  and  how  many  there  will  be, 
so  that  we  may  provide  lodging  near  by,  since  we  can  place  nobody  else  in 
our  lodging  place." 

17 


20(J         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

We  read  at  tlie  close  of  the  letter  of  June  2ord  (after  the 
part  i)iihlished  by  Vogt,  p.  18  seq.)  :  "If  time  should  permit 
we  will  not  withhold  our  intention,  and  will  reply  to  your 
Avriting  regarding  the  sending  of  Osiander  in  our  next  mes- 
sage. The  sixth  hour  of  the  day."  This  explains  why  the 
question  is  not  discussed  by  the  council  until  June  25th, 
after  being  in  the  meantime  deliberated  upon  by  the  coun- 
cil." And  since  this  establishes  the  fact  that  the  postscript 
in  question  belongs  to  the  letter  of  June  21st,  we  also  know 
definitely  that  the  ^'final  completion  of  the  confession  was  not 
begun  until  after  the  opening  of  the  Diet,  Tuesday,  June 
21st." 

This  would  allow  ample  time  for  the  delay  maintained 
by  me  and  others,  but  the  important  question  is  whether  this 
delay  was  caused  by  Melanchthon's  negotiations  with  Valdes 
and  Campeggi,  or  from  the  standpoint  of  the  criticism  of 
sources,  the  answer  to  the  question,  "Of  what  did  Melanch- 
thon  think  when  he  informed  the  Nuremberg  delegates  that 
the  matter  would  perhaps  not  reach  such  a  fidl  discussion, 
but  would  be  drawn  closer  and  framed  more  briefly." 

Brieger  admits  that  the  Nuremberg  delegates  drew  the 
conclusion  that  possibly  a  new  concept  {i.  e.,  article  of  de- 
fence) would  be  elaborated,  but  he  overlooks  the  fact  that 
the  Nuremberg  council  (and  I,  too)  from  what  it  learned 
of  the  transactions,  drew  the  conclusion  that  eventually,  con- 
trary to  the  call  to  the  Diet,  the  delivery  of  a  written  apology 
in  Latin  and  German  would  be  given  up.*°  At  any  rate, 
Brieger  considers  this  view  to  be  erroneous,  and  thinks 
rather  that  Melanchthon,  and  not  he  alone,  thought  of  a 
much  abbreviated  form  of  the  confession.     In  a  very  skilful 


'*  On  June  25th  the  council  resolution  was  passed :  "That  Mr.  Osiander 
should  ride  to  Augsburg,  to  send  him  at  once  and  to  receive  him  in  the  lodg- 
ing of  our  gentlemen,  and  to  write  this  up  more  fully. 

That  in  8  days  Mr.  Krystoft  Koller  and  Jo.  Baumgartner  should  ride  to 
Augsb.  and  that  this  be  hereby  indicated  and  that  they  be  received  in  the 
lodging  of  our  gentlemen."  On  Sunday,  June  26th.  Osiander  was  accordingly 
sent:  "and.  onssiander   (!)   preacher  is  to  ride  on." 

"Vogt,   p.   18. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  207 

investigation  he  connects  the  matter  with  a  peculiarly  formed 
recension  of  the  Aiigustana,  embracing  only  19  articles  of 
faith,  the  so-called  first  Ansbach  manuscript  (mentioned 
in  another  connection),  and  further  with  the  fact  ascer- 
tained by  Forstemann,  and  also  known  to  us  before,  that 
Chancellor  Vogler,  in  an  opinion  dated  June  16th,  in  the 
transactions  on  the  preaching  question,  recommends  to  in- 
form the  Emperor  as  to  the  Christian  character  of  evangelical 
preaching:^'  "And  in  order  that  your  Imp.  Maj.  may  in 
brief  be  thoroughly  informed  about  the  teaching  and  preach- 
ing of  our  preachers,  which  we  consider  a  pure  gospel  and  the 
Word  of  God,  we  hereby  deliver  to  your  Imp.  Maj.  a  clear 
statement  of  the  same,  in  haste  briefly  stated." 

This  recension  may  gain  weight  for  the  question  before 
ns,  since  in  Spalatin's  manuscript  of  the  Augustana,  and  in  a 
Latin  one  (the  Hessian  and  French  translation)"  we  have 
a  confession  of  equal  limitation  (and  as  Brieger  seeks  to 
prove)  with  a  conclusion  (the  summa)  which  gave  no  occa- 
sion to  the  view  that  it  was  only  a  transition  to  a  second  part 
which  formulated  the  reasons  for  abolishing  certain  cere- 
monies. It  was  rather  to  be  an  epilogue  closing  the  confes- 
sion. Brieger,  also,  while  pointing  out  that  Spalatin's  text 
(which  is  evidently  older  than  the  Ansbach  text)  does  not 
have  the  later  summa,  but  a  quite  different  transition  to  the 
second  part,  is  of  the  opinion  that  these  above-mentioned 
documents,  which  were  in  existence  (before  the  arrival  of  the 
Emperor)  in  the  middle  of  June,  must  actually  be  considered 
independent  forms  of  the  confession  (p.  24).  He  also  thinks 
it  may  be  proven  that  in  view  of  the  impending  danger  the 
evangelical  princes  more  and  more  became  of  the  opinion  that 
it  would  be  proper  to  confess  their  faith  in  brief  and  con- 
cise form,  and  by  confirming  their  doctrine  and  preaching 
with  the  clear  truth  of  the  word  of  God  to  silence  the  accu- 


''Brieger,  p.  13,  twice  writes  wrongly  July  16th.  The  opinion  in  Fors- 
temann I,  274  seq. 

"Forstemann,  I,  355.  Here  already  the  article  on  invocation  of 
saints. 


208         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

sation  of  heresy;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  reserve  the  de- 
fence of  their  alterations  of  church  ceremonies  for  the  dis- 
cussion, which,  according  to  the  call  to  the  Diet,  had  to  fol- 
low the  mutual  declaration  of  opinions. 

Brieger  sums  up  his  opinion,  which  I  will  repeat  verbatim, 
in  the  following  theses  (p.  29)  : 

I.  In  the  time  of  which  we  speak  (shortly  before  the  ar- 
rival of  the  Emperor)  we  find  the  German  confession,  and 
possibly  about  the  same  time,  also  the  Latin  (and  this  also  in 
a  French  version)  in  much  briefer  form,  i.  e.,  limited  to  the 
articles  of  faith,  and  provided  with  an  addition  not  in  exist- 
ence a  week  before,  which  in  its  Latin  version  gives  the  im- 
pression of  a  concluding  passage,  and  in  the  German  can 
be  so .  understood  so  that  we  can  hardly  conceive  that  this 
briefer  form  owes  its  existence  to  chance. 

IL  At  that  very  time,  before  the  arrival  of  the  Em- 
peror, a  pause  was  made  in  the  final  revision  of  the  preface 
and  conclusion  belonging  to  the  great  confession. 

III.  A  proposition  made  June  16th  by  the  Margrave- 
Brandenburg  side  to  employ  the  (German)  abbreviated  con- 
fession as  the  basis  of  an  apology  to  be  delivered  to  the  Em- 
peror the  next  day  was  declined  by  Saxony.  This  short  form 
of  the  confession,  giving  information  only  on  the  faith  and 
preaching  of  the  Protestants,  was  not  prepared  for  such  a 
purpose  as  the  private  instruction  of  the  Emperor. 

IV.  When  two  days  later  the  l^uremberg  delegates,  im- 
mediately after  being  officially  admitted  to  the  confession 
of  the  princes,  requested  to  be  told  the  preface  and  conclu- 
sion of  the  comprehensive  document  previously  delivered  to 
them,  they  learn  that  the  "conclusion  is  not  yet  composed," 
and  Melanchthon  does  not  explain  this  by  that  reason  of 
which  he  had  spoken  a  few  days  before  to  the  iSTurember- 
gians,  who  then  were  not  yet  formal  allies,  nor  the  circum- 
stance that  during  the  last  few  days  which  were  entirely 
taken  up  with  the  care  about  the  preservation  of  evangelical 
preaching,  there  was  no  time  left  for  composing  the  conclu- 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  209 

sion ;  but  he  refers  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  elector  as  to  the 
compass  of  his  apology. 

V,  Immediately  the  next  morning  (June  19th)  a  session 
of  the  councils  of  Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Hessen  and  Lilne- 
burg  takes  place  for  the  purpose  of  examining  and  editing 
the  "instructions  in  faith,"  as  ordered  by  the  elector,  and 
tlie  same  of  which  the  Xurembergians  had  ''received  copei." 
A  Nuremberg  delegate  is  called  to  the  session  and  informed 
that  this  work  has  been  resumed.  We  can  hardly  be  mis- 
taken if  we  assume  that  at  tliis  session  the  hesitation  in  re- 
gard to  the  extent  of  the  document  is  ended  and  the  reso- 
lution adopted  to  complete  the  large  apology. 

According  to  this,  Melanchthon^  when  he  made  said  re- 
mark to  the  Xurembergians,  thought  of  the  intention  of  pro- 
ceeding eventually  to  the  articles  of  faith,  and,  therefore,  the 
uncertainty  about  this  question  had  lasted  until  June  21st. 

To  this  of  Brieger  I  have  the  following  reply  to  make : 

I.  The  existence  of  Augustana  manuscripts  that  con- 
tain only  the  articles  of  faith  is  no  proof  that  they  were  writ- 
ten only  to  form  documents  complete  in  themselves  and  to 
serve  special  purposes.^  And  if  Brieger  repeatedly  empha- 
sizes the  fact  that  so  often  the  contemporaneous  documents 
speak  of  ivhat  is  preached  and  taught,  and  infers  that  the 
doctrinal  articles  w^ere  pushed  to  the  front  and  tries  to  prove 
that  the  intention  was  to  deliver  only  the  doctrinal  articles, 
I  would  like  to  state  that  the  entire  Augustana  after  its  deliv- 
ery was  considered  to  be  a  summary  of  all  that  the  preach- 
ers taught.  This,  e.  g.,  was  the  opinion  of  the  Strassburg 
delegates  upon  the  basis  of  what  they  heard  and  a  copy  re- 
ceived from  the  landgrave:  "ivhich  contains  nothing  more 
than  tlteir  preachers  teach."  ^' 

II.  It  is  correct  that  the  Summa  received  its  later  form 
no  earlier  than  in  June,  but  it  owes  its  origin  not  to  "chance," 
as  a  comparison  of  Xa  with  the  later  revision  proves,  but  to 


"*  See   report   of   Nuremberg    delegates. 
^  Pol.  Korre^pondenz  I,  4G3. 


210         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  proper  consideration  that  the  statements  already  made  in 
Na,  but  divided  between  the  close  of  the  first  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  part,  would  be  more  effective,  if  they 
were  all  placed  at  the  close  of  the  first  part. 

III.  It  is  correct  that  the  Latin  Summa  does  sound  as 
if  one  did  not  need  to  expect  a  second  part/"  but  that  does 
not  justify  the  view  that  it  was  to  be  an  epilogue,  actually 
closing  the  confession,  for,  as  Brieger  must  also  have  seen, 
it  is  found  unchanged  in  the  confession  as  afterward  deliv- 
ered. 

IV.  It  is  not  correct  that  Melanchthon,  as  Brieger  states 
in  his  fourth  point,  gives  it  as  a  reason  why  the  apology  is 
not  yet  completed  that  the  elector  is  in  doubt  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  apology.  There  is  no  mention  made  of  it  in  the  re- 
port of  June  19th,  and  that  is  very  important;  Melanchtlion 
is  in  doubt  whether  the  matter  could  not  be  drawn  more 
closely  and  treated  in  terser  form. 

V.  It  is  correct  that  Chancellor  Vogler,  in  discussing 
the  preaching  question,  made  the  proposition  to  deliver  to  the 
Emperor  only  the  articles  of  faith,  to  prove  the  Christianity 
of  evangelical  preaching;  but  this  thought  of  the  chancellor 
or  his  margrave  was  only  ephemeral,  and  that  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word.  On  June  16th  the  opinion  w^as  stated 
on  the  same  evening  the  matter  was  discussed,"  and  upon 
voting  down  Chancelor  Vogler's  motion,  the  document  com- 
posed by  Chancellor  Briick  was  adopted  and  then  sent  on 
the  17th.*^    This  document  was  signed  not  only  by  the  elector, 


♦•Brieger  admitted  p.  22  that  this  was  not  the  case  in  the  German 
Summa. 

*'  Report  of  the  Nurembergians  June  16th :  "Jorg  Vogler  reports  that 
said  princes  have  determined  not  to  omit  the  preaching  and  that  on  the 
morrow  they  are  willing  to  deliver  a  written  explanation  to  H.  Imp.  Maj.'' 
C.   R.   IL   108. 

*=Forstemann,  I,  283.  Brieger.  p.  .^0,  says  that  Vogler's  proposi- 
tion was  declined  by  Saxony  and  adds  :  "Possibly  also  by  Hessen  and  Lunen- 
burg, in  case  they  as  is  probable  had  already  allied  themselves  to  the  elector 
in  matters  of  faith.  This  can  be  proven  no  earlier  than  June  19th".  The  only 
document  reporting  this  declining  is  the  writing  to  the  emperor  of  June  17th, 
since   the   evangelical    princes   there    first    appear    in    writing    as    allies    in    the 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  211 

but  also  by  Margrave  George,  Duke  Ernst,  of  Liineburg, 
Landgrave  Philip,  of  Hessen,  and  Prince  Wolf,  of  Anhalt 
And  if  the  thought  had  ever  come  to  one  prince  or  another, 
to  subscribe  only  to  the  articles  of  faith,  it  was  thereby  re- 
pudiated. For  if  in  that  document  they  demand  that  they 
be  not  condemned  prematurely  by  the  abolition  of  evangelical 
preaching,  but  according  to  the  call  everyone's  opinion  and 
view  was  here  heard,  and  then  everything  that  ivas  wrongly 
undertaken  on  either  side  was  to  be  abolished  and  brought, 
to  Christian  unity  (p.  285),  and  if  further  they  point  to  the 
"terrible  innovations"  on  the  other  side,  both  in  doctrines, 
customs  and  walk  (p.  286),  I  deem  the  view  excluded  that  the 
princes  could  think  of  delivering  only  articles  of  faith."  It 
is  equally  impossible  that  Melanchthon,  in  his  reply  to  the 
Nurembergians  (say  on  June  18th),  thought  only  of  a  con- 
fession limited  to  the  articles  of  faith. 


The  same  result  is  reached  by  an  analysis  of  the  reports 
concerning  Melanchthon's  negotiations  with  Valdes,  (See 
above. ) 

Even  according  to  ]>riegcr  the  negotiations  with  the  im- 
perial secretary  began  soon  after  the  arrival  of  the  Emperor, 


matter  of  confession.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Briick  there  used  Vogler's 
Opinion.  Cf.  the  statements  that  the  Word  must  not  be  bound,  the  Word  of 
God  is  the  food  of  tl  a  soul  and  the  reference  to  Matth.  4,  "  Man  does  not 
live  by  bread  alone."      Forstemann,   I,   275   and   284. 

"  B  r  i  e  g  e  r  certainly,  who,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  has  not  used  this  docu- 
ment, remarks  on  the  declining  of  Vogler's  proposition  :  "  This  form  of  the 
confession,  brief  as  it  was  and  giving  informaton  only  on  the  faith  and  preach- 
ing of  the  Protestants,  was  not  prepared  for  such  a  purpose  as  the  instruction 
of  the  emperor."  But  it  can  not  be  proven  that  the  first  part  was  "  made 
over  "  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  it  alone.  If  Brleger  attaches  importance 
(p.  13)  to  the  fact  that  Vogler  proposes  to  write:  "  Thus  we  deliver  to  your 
Imp.  Maj.  a  pure  statement  in  haste  briefly  framed"  (Forstemann  p.  280) 
the  expression  is  easily  explained  from  the  fact  that  he  well  knew  that  the 
articles  of  faith  would  not  receive  their  final  form  for  a  long  time.  And 
further,  if  we  can  easily  understand  Vogler's  intention  to  deliver  the  articles 
of  faith  to  the  emperor  temporarily  on  account  of  the  preaching  question, 
I  can  not  understand  what  occasion  there  could  be  without  this  special  reason 
to  be  silent  at  first  about  the  abolition  of  abuses,  the  dogmatic  relation  of 
which  certainly  would  have  to  be  treated  at  the  Diet,  and  to  postpone  them 
for  an  oral  discussion  which  could  not  be  avoided. 


212         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  Melanchthoii  in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  after 
Valdes  (according  to  the  ''message")  had  informed  him  of 
the  Spanish  views  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  had  tried  to  prove 
to  him  that  the  Lutheran  cause  was  not  so  terribly  out  of 
the  way  as  H.  Imp.  Maj.  was  perhaps  informed,  and  that  the 
controversy  concerned  i)rincipally  these  articles,  viz. :  the  two- 
fold form  of  the  sacrament,  the  marriage  of  priests  and  monks 
and  of  masses,  that,  namely,  the  Lutherans  could  not  approve 
of  special  private  masses.  "If  these  points  were  agreed 
upon,"  he  thought,  "order  and  ways  and  means  might  be  de- 
vised for  the  rest."  " 

These  remarks  must  have  been  made  before  Saturday, 
June  18th,  for  the  Nurembergians  further  write:  "Above- 
mentioned  Alfonsus  undertook  to  deliver  said  report,  and  on 
Saturday  invited  Philippus  again."  From  this  it  is  clear 
that  when  Melanchthon  (according  to  the  report  of  June 
19th)  no  later  than  June  18th,  remarked  to  the  delegates 
"that  the  matter  perhaps  would  not  reach  such  a  lengthy  dis- 
cussion, but  would  be  drawn  closer  and  treated  more  briefly," 
he  had  the  same  thing  in  mind.  If  both  statements,  which 
are  so  very  nearly  contemporaneous,  are  placed  side  by  side 
without  prejudice,  there  really  can  be  no  doubt  that  Melanch- 
thon thought  here  as  there  and  as  at  the  delivery  of  the  Torgaii 
Articles  of  this  point,  that  the  discussion  of  those  practical 
points  luas  the  principal  tiling,  and  that  therefore  the  apology, 
at  least  in  its  present  extent,  would  perhaps  be  unnecessary. 

At  any  rate  I  cannot  conceive  that  the  same  Melanchthon, 
who  according  to  Brieger  even  negotiates  with  Valdes  with 
the  knowledge  of  the  elector's  counsellors,  explained  this  to 


**  Notice  the  agreement  with  what  Melanchthon  according  to  Jonas'  re- 
port had  treated  June  l.'Uh  with  Henry  of  Brunswiclt.  Enders  VII.  3S1  :  "The 
Duke  of  Brunswick  talked  for  a  while  with  Philipp  some  very  good  things 
concerning  the  public  cause.  He  said  that  he  formerly  and  now  every  now 
and  then,  ever  since  his  return  from  Italy,  read  the  New  Testament  and  had 
derived  much  profit  from  this  reading,  and  that  he  saw  that  the  sacrament 
sub  utraque,  the  marriage  of  priests,  monastic  liberty  and  the  abolition  of 
private  masses,  and  liberty  in  meats,  were  articles  that  could  not  rightly  be 
condemned,  and  that  there  with  the  help  (if  God  means  of  concord  could  be 
discovered." 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTIION.  213 

him  and  at  the  same  time  (as  we  must  assume  with  Brieger's 
hypothesis)  thought  of  giving  the  apology  a  form  which 
from  principle  refrains  from  the  ceremonies  and  practical 
questions  and  of  delivering  the  articles  of  faith  to  the  Em- 
peror as  the  principal  matter,  even  though  only  for  the 
present. 

And  Valdes  and  the  Emperor  look  upon  the  matter  simi- 
larly with  the  Nurembergians.  Melanchthon's  remarks  are 
transmitted  by  Valdes  to  the  Emperor,  who  receives  them 
with  approval,  as  does  also  the  papal  legate  whom  the  Em- 
peror has  informed.  All  this  takes  place  from  June  16th  to 
18th.  And  as  late  as  the  18th  Valdes  invites  Melanchthon 
and  reports  to  him  what  has  been  done  in  the  meantime.  We 
learn  that  the  Emperor,  from  what  he  has  heard,  has  gained 
the  impression  that  it  might  be  possible  to  avoid  the  public 
hearing,  the  announcement  of  which  he  regretted  for  some 
time.  He  has  Melanchthon  informed  of  his  conviction  that 
"it  would  be  the  most  profitable  thing  to  undertake  the  matter 
in  quiet  and  privacy  and  not  in  an  extended  public  argument 
and  discussion,"  i.  e.,  as  it  had  been  specified  in  the  Call. 
The  Emperor  and  Valdes  evidently  infer  from  Melanch- 
thon's remark  that  "  the  Lutheran  cause  was  not  so  terribly 
out  of  the  way"  that  this  is  Ms  intention  also.  How  could 
they  do  otherwise  ?  How  is  it,  therefore,  possible,  I  ask 
again,  to  think  that  Melanchthon,  when  he  at  the  same  time 
said  to  the  Xurembergians  that  the  Confession  might  be 
drawn  more  closely  and  stated  more  briefly,  thought  of  de- 
livering to  the  Emperor  a  Confession  embracing  merely  the 
articles  of  faith  ? 

I  must,  therefore,  maintain  what  Brieger  opposes  quite 
determinedly,  that  Melanchthon  hesitated  to  complete  the 
Confession  and  momentarily  believed  the  delivery  of  it  might 
even  be  dispensed  with.  For  he  agrees  to  the  desire  to  state 
most  briefly  the  articles  which  the  Lutherans  especially  de- 
manded (those  questions  on  ceremonies)  and  to  present  them 
to   x\lfonso.      The    Nuremberg    delegates    report   expressly: 


214         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

"Upon  such  request^  Philippus  offered  to  consider  the  case 
and  furnish  a  list." 

And  yet,  before  he  went  further,  he  determined  to  get 
the  consent  of  Chancellor  Briick  and  the  elector, — toward 
which  he  first  proceeded  three  days  later  (surely  no  argument 
for  the  view  that  he  has  been  acting  np  to  this  point  in 
harmony  with  the  elector's  counsellors).  And  the  result 
was  the  rejection  of  his  private  negotiations  and  the  reso- 
lution to  finish  the  Confession  at  last  and  proceed  to  it  at 
once."  And  this  was  not  the  case,  as  Brieger  assumes,  on 
Sunday,  the  19th,  but,  as  was  ascertained  before,  on  Tues- 
day, June  21st. 


This  ended  Melanchthon's  negotiations  officially  at  least; 
but  how  much  had  they  attained  ? 

At  this  point  we  observe  a  difference  between  the  two  re- 
ports that  have  come  down  to  ns  from  evangelical  circles, 
namely,  the  letter  of  the  Nurembergians  and  the  message 
from  Augsburg,  that  the  latter  adds  to  the  statement  that  the 
Emperor  had  commanded  Valdes  "  to  tell  Philippus  to  send 
H.  Maj.  a  short  statement  without  prof useness :"  "That 
Philippxis  did  so,  and  therefore  also  commanded  Alphonso  to 
go  to  the  legate  and  negotiate  with  him.  This  was  done  and 
the  shook  was  greatest  everywhere  in  the  mass.  This  entitles 
to  good  hope,  thanks  be  to  God,  that  the  Emperor  is  willing  to 
help  the  matter  and  God  has  helped  it  along."  This  state- 
ment would  be  worth  even  more  if  it  could  be  proven  that 
Spalatin  is  the  reporter ;  but  that  seems  to  be  merely  a  later 
supposition.  Since  the  Augsburg  report  is  not  clear  as  to  its 
chronology,  we  cannot  conclude  from  it  that  Melanchthon 


"  That  is  not  directly  reported  anywhere,  but  since  the  Nuremberg  delegate 
Christoph.  Kress  In  the  postscript  to  the  letter  in  which  he  reports  that 
Melanchthon  would  "  to-day  converse  "  with  Briick,  makes  the  statement  that 
he  was  lust  called  into  the  hotel  of  the  elector,  where  in  the  nresence  of  the 
counsellors  of  Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Hessen  and  Liineburg,  he  was  informed 
that  they  were  on  the  point  of  "  revising,  writing  and  completing  the  articles," 
the  conclusion  is  justified  that  Melanchthon's  statements  to  Briick  and  the  con- 
sultation, and  the  resolution  of  the  assembled  evangelical  counsellors  are  con- 
necttd  with   each  other. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON,  215 

delivered  anything  in  writing  either  before  or  after  the  con- 
sultation with  Briick,  and  it  is  extremely  improbable.  In 
the  Augsburg  message  there  might  possibly  be  a  confusion 
of  the  points  verbally  fixed. 

After  all,  the  negotiations  with  Valdes  and  mediately  with 
Campeggi  had  further  consequences.  What  importance  was 
attached  to  them  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  foreign  embas- 
sadors, who  heard  about  them,  hastened  to  report  the  im- 
pending change  at  home.  The  Mantuan  ambassador,  Antonio 
Bogarotto,  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Mantua,  that  the  Lutheran 
princes  had  made  ''supplication"  to  have  four  points 
granted  them :  1.  The  confirming  of  the  confiscated  church 
properties  to  the  possession  of  the  laity.  2.  The  sacrament 
sub  utraque.  3.  The  changes  made  in  the  mass.  4.  The 
marriage  of  priests.  The  Emperor  was  said  to  have  replied 
that  he  would  act  according  to  duty  and  reason,  and  to  have 
sent  Granvella  at  once  to  the  legate  to  confer  with  him  on 
the  basis  of  these  demands,  quid  agendum." 

This  report,  which  does  not  even  mention  Melanchthon, 
and  relates  the  demands  of  the  "  princes  "  immediately  after 
the  negotiations  of  the  evangelical  estates  with  the  Emperor 
concerning  the  question  of  preaching,  was  written  no  later 
than  June  20th.'"  Hence  it  can  apply  only  to  what  was  re- 
lated in  connection  with  Melanchthon's  verbal  statements  and 
not  to  points  fixed  in  writing.  If  the  question  concerning 
church  properties  here  appears  as  a  new  point,  it  can  not  be 
due  to  mere  invention.  At  least  it  is  quite  probable  that 
Valdes  also  touched  upon  this  point  and  that  Melanchthon 
then  had  no  other  choice  than  to  remark  that  it  was  a  self- 
evident  demand  of  the  Protestants  to  grant  the  bestowal  of 
church  properties." 


"  First  in  (Thomas)  M.  Luther  u.  d.  Ref.  Bewegung  in  Deutschl.  vom 
J.  1520-1532  in  Ausziigen  aus  Marino  Sanutos  Diarien.  Ansbach  1883,  p. 
169.     Complete  in  the  Diarii  di   Marino  Sanuto.  Vol.   53,  Venice   1899',  p.   326. 

"To  my   knowledge   fir.st  ascertained   by    Brieger,   p.    36. 

*^  Note  that  the  Protestants  in  those  days  feared  to  be  attacked  upon 
this  very  point.  According  to  a  council  resolution  June  25,  the  Nuremberg 
Council  resolved  "  to  deliberate  concerning  monasteries,  in  case  of  contro- 
versy."   (Kreisarchiv  in   Nuremberg.) 


21G         THE    LUTHERAN    C 0 N F E ^ S ION tS. 

To  the  same  time  evidently  belongs  also  the  related  re- 
port of  the  Venetian  embassador,  Tiepolo,  which  unfortu- 
nately is  not  dated."  While  the  Mantnan  (at  least  this  is  the 
most  probable)  had  his  news  from  Valdes  or  Campeggi,  much 
speaks  for  the  assumption  that  the  Venetian  received  the 
wishes  of  the  "  preachers  "  as  it  is  here  stated,  through  direct 
intercourse  with  Melanchthon,  which  relation  can  be  defi- 
nitely proven.  Of  course  the  notorious  letter  of  Melanch- 
thon  to  Campeggi,  which  in  several  manuscripts  is  ascribed 
to  Oratori  Thepulo  (Tiepolo)""  is  not  addressed  to  him,  but 
really  to  Campeggi.  An  epistle  to  Tiepolo,  not  extant,  which 
in  the  middle  of  the  fifties  was  circulated  by  the  enemies  of 
Melanchthon,  must  have  been  a  forgery.  We  can  believe 
Melanehthon  when,  September  5th,  1556,  he  writes  that  he 
never  wrote  to  Tiepolo;  but  in  the  same  letter  to  Flacius  in 
which  he  states  this  he  tells  us  of  a  conversation  which  he 
had  with  Tiepolo  during  the  Augsburg  Diet."  According  to 
it  the  Venetian  embassador  had  been  instructed  to  offer  his 
services  to  the  Saxon  elector.  Melanchthon  had  been  sent 
to  Tiepolo  with  Chancellor  Briick,  avowedly  to  thank  the 
Venetian  senate,  evidently  because  the  speech  had  to  be  made 
in  Latin.  After  his  address,  in  which,  according  to  his  state- 
ment, he  had  not  mentioned  the  religious  controversies,  the 
embassador  had  protested  against  receiving  his  remarks  aa 
an  assent  to  the  doctrine  accepted  in  the  Saxon  country.  "  I 
replied,"  says  Melanchthon,  *'  that  we  had  not  thus  regarded 
the  matter.  Thereupon,  as  was  befitting,  I  spoke  of  the 
virtue  of  the  prince,  his  true  piety  and  that  he  confessed 
(amplecti)  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  rejected 


"Sanuto,    p.    312    [Kolde's    original    prints    the    quotation,    which    states 
the  above-mentioned  four  points]. 

="  July  6th.  C.  R.  11,  169  seq.     Of.  the  Letters  of  R  o  s  e  I  1  u  s  ,  Venice,  C.  R. 

II,  226  and  243.  Ben  rath,  Jahrb.  fiir  Prot.  Theol.  1882,  p.  179.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  Melanchthon's  Letter  to  Campeggi,  B  r  i  e  g  e  r 
(p.  37  note)  to  the  contrary  nolwith.-^tanding,  as  he  does  not  enter  upon 
M.'s  relations  to  Tiepolo.  It  agrees  perfectly  with  M.'s  original  view  of 
Campeggi  and  with  all  that  has  been  discovered  about  his  position  in  the 
Introduction   to    the  Augustana,    etc. 

"  C.   R.  VIII,  939.     Cf.   S  a  1  i  g  ,   Vollstand.    Historic  der  Augsb.   Konfession. 

III,  (Halle  1735)   y.  329. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  217 

the  abuses,  and  desired  to  have  the  controversial  questions 
which  liad  arisen,  decided  and  ])rovision  made  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  entire  church."  In  this  sense  he  had  spoken  to 
this  man  who  was  hostile  to  the  evangelical  people,  and  per- 
haps had  said  a  few  general  things  to  defend  them,  but  could 
not  definitely  remember  his  words.  Afterwards  liis  ivords 
had  been  committed  to  writing,  and^'  that  may  have  been 
the  origin  of  said  letter. 

It  does  not  concern  us  what  was  the  nature  of  this  letter ; 
but  what  Melanchthon  reports  about  the  conversation  gives 
rise  to  the  supposition  that  at  this  occasion  he  also  referred 
to  those  points  which  according  to  his  view  were  essential, 
and  that  the  embassador  fixed  upon  them  as  the  demand  of 
the  preachers  and  reported  home  accordingly.  That  Tiepolo 
gives  them  first  place  in  his  report,  even  before  mentioning 
the  opening  of  the  Diet  (June  20th),  only  proves  the  impor- 
tance which  the  zealous  representative  of  the  Catholic  Church 
attached  to  these  remarks,  and  is  no  proof  that  this  conversa- 
tion with  which  I  hypothetically  connect  his  report  took 
place  before  the  20th,  although  that  is  quite  possible.  Neither 
can  it  be  concluded  from  the  fact  that  Briick  was  present 
during  these  discussions  that  Melanchthon  negotiated  with 
Valdes  in  agreement  with  Briick.  According  to  Melanch- 
thon's  own  description  of  the  situation,  his  remarks  about 
the  religious  question,  the  abolition  of  abuses,  etc.,  were  only 
made  incidentally  with  the  view  to  exonerate  his  prince  and 
Protestants  in  general,  but  not,  as  in  the  negotiations  with 
Valdes,  to  attach  definite  propositions  to  them.  The  whole 
episode  only  serves  to  show  how  much  Melanchthon  was  in- 
clined to  awaken  the  thought  among  opponents  that  the  issue 
was  essentially  about  doing  away  with  certain  abuses,  or 
about  certain  concessions  on  the  part  of  those  of  the  old  faith. 
'  According  to  the  information  given  by  the  imperial  sec- 
retary, Cardinal  Campeggi  had  also  received  the  impression 
that  this  would  be  the  chief  point  in  the  "  opinion  and  inten- 


^ "  Afterwards   my   words  were   annotated   in  some  manner." 


218         THE    LUTHER  AX    C  0  X  E  E  S  ;^  1 0  N  S. 

tion "  prepared  by  the  protesting  estates."^  He  writes,  as 
Brieger  proves  probably  (p.  39),  on  the  23rd,  that  he  had 
learned  in  various  ways  that  the  Protestants  in  the  "  opin- 
ion "  which  they  were  to  present  the  next  day  would  confine 
themselves  to  four  points:  the  sacrament  sub  ntraque,  the 
celibacy  of  priests,  the  canon  of  the  mass,  and  what  appears 
here  for  the  first  time  and  is  very  important  for  the  whole 
investigation,  a  General  Council/*  "They  also  desire,  as  is 
said,  to  confiscate  the  possessions  of  the  clerg}'."  "  The  way 
in  which  this  point  is  here  added,  confirms  the  supposition  T 
expressed  above,  that  this  question  was  touched  upon  only 
incidentally  in  the  negotiations.  In  this  general  form  Cam- 
peggi  made  his  report  to  the  cardinal  secretary  of  state,  Sal- 
viati,  in  his  message,  written  in  intervals  and  sent  June  26th. 

At  the  same  time,  as  Brieger  has  proven  in  a  masterly 
investigation,  he  must  have  sent  ofiicially  to  Rome,  directly 
to  the  Pope  (perhaps  by  private  messenger),"  four  definite 
points  as  the  demands  of  the  Lutherans.  The  question  then 
arises,  "  Whence  come  these  four  points  ?  "  Did  IMelanch- 
thon  perhaps,  after  all,  as  the  message  from  Augsburg  sug- 
gests, fix  the  demand  of  the  Protestants  for  Valdes,  i.  e.  (we 
must  assume  this),  since  he  wanted  to  confer  with  Briick, 
officially  with  the  sanction  of  Briick  and  the  elector  ?  I  con- 
sider that  impossible  in  view  of  the  preparation  made  for  the 
immediate  delivery  of  the  confession. 

But  how  did  they  arise  then?  Probably  in  the  same  way 
as  those  sent  to  Venice  by  Tiepolo.     ''  Their  formulation," 


"*  For  diverse  reasons  I  Intend  that  they  should  restrict  themselves  to 
the  four  points.  L  a  m  m  e  r  ,  Monum.  Vaticana.  Freiburg  1861,  p.  43.  This 
incompletely  transmitted  message  is  well  examined  in  Brieger,  p.  39. 

°'  The  fourth  that  there  should  by  all  means  be  a  General  Council  in  which 
I   know   the   mind  of   N.    S.    (Lammer,   p.    44). 

"  They  also  speak  of  confiscating  the  ecclesiastical  possessions,  which  would 
be  a  robbery  upon  the  whole  eccl.  state.    Jhid. 

"  U  Is  suflBcient  to  refer  to  Brieger,  p.  41,  and  the  sources  there  mentioned. 
I  would  like  to  add  that  to  this  message  to  the  Pope  must  have  been  joined 
the  Diet  proposition  which  Campeggi  originally  wished  to  join  with  his  mes- 
sage to  Salviatl.  (Lammer,  p.  42),  but  which  must  have  been  sent  sooner 
than  the  writing  of  the  26th  to  Salviati.  as  according  to  the  report  of  Andreas 
del  Burgo  of  July  12th  (Brieger,  p.  4P)  was  read  in  the  consistory  on 
the  6th. 


KOLDE    ON   MELANCHTHON.  210 

says  Brieger  correctly  (p.  43),  "may  be  traced  to  Valdes, 
since  he  fixed  the  demands  of  the  Protestants  upon  the  basis 
of  Melanchtlion's  verbal  statements."  But  if  Brieger  thinks 
he  can  safely  gather  their  contents  from  the  report  of  the 
Nurembergians,  although  the  fourth  article  probably  refers 
to  the  demands  for  a  General  Council,  and  sees  the  occasion 
of  fixing  them  in  the  negotiations  carried  on  until  June  19th, 
I  can  not  consider  tiiis  to  be  correct,  since  the  addition  of  the 
demand  for  a  Coinicil  speaks  against  it. 

I  would  rather  venture  another  combination — and  in  the 
scantiness  of  sources  we  all  are  dependent  upon  combinations 
and  surmises. 

For  Melanchthon,  after  the  conversation  with  Briick  on 
June  21st,  the  negotiations  with  Valdes  were  not  yet  closed. 
If  he  did  not  dare  to  conduct  them  in  the  name  of  the  Evan- 
gelical estates,  he  did  consider  himself  justified  in  continuing 
them  personally.  We  learn  that  from  him  directly,  for  as  he 
writes  to  Camerarius  (June  26th)  he  has  permitted  Valdes  to 
examine  the  confession  before  its  delivery.  To  his  terror  he 
learned  that  Valdes,  notwithstanding  the  author's  endeavor 
to  state  everything  as  mildly  as  possible,  had  found  it  sharper 
(iTiKpoTepov)  than  the  opponents  could  stand."  After  the 
earlier  negotiations  it  is  probable  that  Melanchthon  showed 
him  the  second  part  specially,  for  the  iriKpoTepov  in  the  opin- 
ion of  Valdes  can  refer  only  to  it.  We  can  readily  assume 
that  the  three  points  were  again  mentioned,  for  that  they 
remained  the  principal  thing  to  Melanchthon  even  after  all 
that  had  been  treated  in  the  last  deliberations  of  the  Evan- 
gelical estates  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  on  the  same 
day,  without  special  occasion  on  the  part  of  the  opponents,  he 
wrote  to  Luther :  Xunc  mihi  constituendum,  priusquam  re- 
s.pondeant  adversarii,  quid  velimus  concedere  ipsis;  de  ufra- 
que  specie,  de  conjiigio,  de  privata  Missa;  omnis  erat  delib- 
eratio. 


"C.  R.  II.    140. 
»J6.,  141. 


220         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  during  this  conversation  with  Valdes,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  letter  to  Camerarius,  could  not  have  taken  place 
earlier  than  June  22d  or  23d,  Melanehthon,  after  Briick's 
preface  was  completed,  must  also  have  acquainted  him  with 
the  renewed  demand  of  a  Council.  This  explains  the  circum- 
stances to  me  that  after  the  previous  negotiations,  as  far  as  I 
see,  this  question  was  not  again  broached  by  the  Protestants. 
Campeggi  in  his  report  to  Salviati  now  mentions  the  demand 
for  a  Council  as  the  fourth  point.  For  we  must  almost  surely 
conclude  that  Campeggi,  when  he  wrote  this,  had  again  been 
acquainted  by  Valdes  of  the  progress  of  affairs,  since  he,  as 
an  argument  of  the  opponents  for  the  aholifion  of  the  ceUhacy 
introduces  a  very  special  statement  from,  the  confession.  This 
he  could  scarcely  liave  learned  from  anyone  but  Valdes,  who 
has  seen  tlie  confession.  "Allegano  nostri  Canonisti,  quali 
dicono  che  cosi  come  la  Chiesa  ex  magna  causa  ordino  il  Celi- 
bato,  cosi  adesso  majori  ex  causa  si  doveria  levari."  °° 

We  need  no  further  declaration  that  Valdes  also  informed 
Granvella  or  the  Pope  of  those  things  which  he  had  heard 
of  Melanehthon  in  renewed  conversation.  Though  Melaneh- 
thon had  spoken  only  as  a  private  man,  he  was  still  the  best 
kno^vn  among  the  evangelical  theologians,  and  his  remarks 
could  pass  as  an  authoritative  statement  of  the  sentiment. 
Thereupon,  Valdes  must  have  received  the  commission  to  fix 
them  in  writing,  and,  so  as  to  know  for  all  cases,  how  Rome 
would  act  in  regard  to  them,  to  send  them  to  Rome  directly 
through  Campeggi.  Before  he  sent  his  message  to  Salviati 
they  must  have  gone  to  Rome,  as  articles  of  Melanehthon,"" 
since  the  consistory  debated  them  July  6th. 

Thus  on  the  foundation  of  fragmentary  sources  we  must 
imagine  things  to  have  taken  place,  until  new  discoveries 
teach  us  something  else. 


■*  L  ii  in  m  e  r  ,  p.  44. 

«"  J  .  Ficker,  D.  Konfutation  d.  Augsb.  Bekennt.  Leipzig  1891,  p.  XVII. 
The  demand  of  a  council  was  not  a  demand  of  Melanchtlion's,  who  in  this 
point  was  willing  to  defer  to  the  emperor.      C.   R.   II,  94. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

KOLDE  OX  THE  EIRST  KXOWX  DRAFT,  OR 
OLDEST  RE  I)  ACTION,  OF  THE  AUGS- 
BURG COXFESSIOX  AND  ITS 
DISCOVERY. 

The  Discovery  of  the  Document— Its  Significance— A  Brief  Analysis  of  Its  Con- 
tents, Including  Especially  Melanchthon's  Introduction— Fate  of  this  Redaction. 


DIE    ALTESTE    REDAKTION 

DER    AUGSBURGER    KONFESSION^ 

MIT  MELANCHTHONS  EINLEITUNG 

zum  erstenmal  herausgegeben  und  geschichtlich  gewurdigt 

VON 

D.   Theodor    Kolde, 

0.  Prof,  der  Kirchengeschichte  in  Erlangen. 


Gutersloh: 

Druck  und  Verlag  von  C.  Bertelsmann. 

1906. 


^The  Oldest  Redaction  of  the  Angsburg  Confession,  with  Melanchthon  s 
Introduction,  for  the  first  time  published  and  hi^torl';^"^.  ''^i.^'?-  ^^  'l.V 
Theodor   Kolde,    regular   Professor  of   Church    History   in    Erlangen,   etc. 

221 
18 


PREFACE. 


HABEXT  sua  fata  libolli.  Tlio  publisher's  desire  that  I 
should  write  an  entirely  new  introduction  to  the  Sym- 
bolical Ijooks  (which  would  be  proportionate  to  the  present 
status  of  science,  and  which,  the  Lord  willing,  is  to 
appear  during  the  next  year)  for  "  J.  T.  ^l  ii  1 1  e  r  '  s  Die 
syuibolischen  ]3Uc]ier  der  evangel ischdutherischcn  Kirche," 
led  uie  first  of  all  to  resume  my  Augustana  researches,  and  es- 
pecially to  reach  clear  conclusions  -as  to  Th.  Brieger's  newest 
work,  "  Zur  Geschichte  des  Augsburger  Beichstags  von  1530." 
()\it  of  this  work  grew  the  dissertation*  published  in  the  sec- 
ond ])art  of  the  present  book  ''On  Melanchthon's  Negotia- 
tions with  Alphonso  Valdes  and  Lor.  Campeggi."  It  was  al- 
most completed  in  the  first  draft  when  the  discovery  of  the 
earliest  redaction,  which  is  here  printed**  for  the  first  time, 
clain)ed  my  entire  attention.  It  was  a  matter  of  course  that 
\]\o  historical  appreciation  of  this  document  should  now  come 
to  the  fore,  for,  as  I  believe  to  have  proven,  it  has  brought  us 
a  great  deal  further  in  our  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  the 
principal  evangelical  confession.  At  the  same  time  we  have 
caught  important  new  g-limpses  of  the  political  and  ecclesi- 


[•  Constitutes  Chap.   XVI   of  this   Book.] 
[**  Constitutes   Chap.    XVIII   of   this    Book.] 

222 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUGUSTAN  A.  233 

astical  history  of  the  Aiigbburg  Diet.  As  this  also  throws 
new  light  on  Melanchthon's  private  negotiations,  which  are 
so  closely  connected  with  the  history  of  the  Angustana  text, 
I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  append  my  investigations  as  a  sec- 
ond part,  although  the  rather  long  title  of  my  hook  does  not 
make  special  references  to  it. 


D.    TH.    KOLDE. 


Erlangen,  Dec.  5tli,  1905. 


I. 


THE    OLDEST    REDACTION    OF    THE    AUGSBFRO    CONFESSION. 

Xext  to  the  question  abont  the  genuine  text  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  it  was  read  and  presented  June  25th,  1530, 
to  the  Emperor  and  the  land,  the  problem  concerning  its 
gradual  formation  has  from  the  start  abundantly  occupied 
scientific  investigators.  Since  the  fundamental  works  of  G . 
G.  Weber,'  F  o  r  s  t  e  m  a  n  n^  and  Bindseil,*  a  large 
and  ever  increasing  literature  on  the  subject,  has  come  into  be- 
ing, and  we  owe  it  many  an  important  result  even  in  later 
years.  We  know  now,  among  other  things,  and  it  is  one 
of  the  merits  of  T  h  .  B  r  i  e  g  e  r  "  to  have  determined 
it,   what   is   meant   by  the   ''  Torgau   xVrticles,"    that   opin- 


-G.    G.    Weber,    Kritische    Geschichte    der    Au(/spxirgischen    Confession. 
Frankfurt  a.   M.  1783   and   1784.   2  vols. 

^K.  Ed.  Porstemann,  TJ rkundenbuch  zu  dcr  Geschichte  dcs  Reich sta(js 
::u  Augsburg  im  Jahre   1530.      Halle   1830  f.   2  vols. 

*H.  B.  Bindseil  in  the  Corpus  Ref..  vol.  xxvl   (Brunswick  1858),  pp.  97 
seqq. 

°Th.    Brieger,    The   Torgau    Articles,   in    Kirchenge.schielitliche    Studlen, 
Leipzig.    1888   pp.    265   seqq. 


224:         THE    lA'THEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ion  of  the  Wittenberg  theologians  that  was  delivered  to  the 
Prince  Elector  at  Torgau  toward  the  end  of  April.  "With 
this  first  draft  of  that  which  gradually  grew  into  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  we  have  gained  a  secure  foundation  for 
further  research.  The  more  tliorough  examination  of  the 
material  in  letters  and  official  documents  has  given  us  in- 
formation about  many  details,  and  the  origin  and  value  of 
various  manuscript  recensions  of  the  Augustana  as  it  grew 
into  shape,  have  been  discussed  in  many  instances.  But 
notwithstanding  the  acumen  devoted  to  these  problems,  we 
are  still  far  from  having  a  clear  understanding  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  gradual  formation  of  the  Confession,  much  less 
can  we  determine  with  anv  degree  of  certaintv  the  single 
phases  through  which  its  text  passed  under  the  ever-ameudiug 
hand  of  ]\relanchthon  and  the  influence  of  circumstances. 
The  fact  is,  that  all  the  copies"  extant  from  the  time  before 
the  presentation  of  the  Confession,  including  even  Spalatin's 
which  is  deserving  of  special  consideration,  take  us  back  not 
much  further  llum  about  th(^  time  of  the  arrival  of  tlie  Em- 
peror, that  is,  the  middle  of  June. 

For  this  very  reason  the  question  which  justly  was  treated 
again  and  again,  concerning  the  extent  and  contents  of  the 
''Apolog}'"  sent  ]\Iay  11th  to  Lutlier  and  approved  by  him, 
could  be  answered  only  in  the  most  imperfect  manner.  It  was 
surmised  that  it  contained  a  rather  rhetorically  written  in- 
troduction, whicli  Melanchthon,  as  soon  as  he  arrived  in  Augs- 
burg, substituted  *  for  a  sim])ler  one  written  in  Koburg,  and 
which  afterward,  before  tlie  presentation  of  the  Confession, 
had  to  give  way  to  a  preface  written  by  the  diplomat  Briick. 
Then  it  was  determined,  with  considoi-able  certainty,  tliat  the 
''Apology"  did  not  contain  the  (XX.)  article  "'Of  Faith 
and  Good  Works,"  that  the  (XXVII.)  article  "  Of  Monastic 
Vows  "  was  given  in  shorter  form  than  as  we  know  it  now, 


•Melanchthon   to   Luther.    May   2nd    (Corp.    Rrf.   II.   ?,9   seq.).      Ego  exordium 
ttostrae    apologiae    feci    alliiuanto  Iji/zopiKdrifjov  quam   Coburgae  scripseram. 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF    AUGUSTAyA.  2?.j 

and  that  the  (XXVIII.),  "  De  Potestate  Ecclesiasticii," 
which  i)crliaps  was  not  even  written,  most  certainly  was  not 
known  to  Lnther  in  the  form  presented  Jnne  25th/ 

A  document  of  importance  to  the  question  as  to  what 
Luther  had  really  seen,  could  be  expected  to  be  found  in  the 
Latin  version  which  the  Xuremberg  delegates  received  ^lay 
31st  and  sent  to  Xnremberg  on  June  3rd/  For  even  if  the 
text  probably  was  no  longer  the  same  that  Luther  had  seen, 
since,  as  we  know,  many  changes  were  made  in  it  directly 
after  it  returned  from  Koburg/  it  was  still  to  be  assumed 
that  the  version  sent  to  Xurend^erg  was  after  all  nearer  the 
original  one  than  it  was  to  the  final  revision.  And,  in  any 
event,  it  must  be  an  im])ortant  stage  in  the  history  of  the 
Augustana  text.  But  all  searching  for  that  "incomplete" 
Latin  version  was  in  vain  up  to  the  present. 

Then  D  r.  K  a  r  1  S  c  h  o  r  n  b  a  u  m  ,  to  whom  the  investi- 
gation of  the  history  of  the  Frankish-Brandenburgian  Ilefor- 
mation  is  so  much  indebted,  in  a  letter  dated  July  11th,  called 
my  attention  to  a  document  without  date  or  title,  found  by  him 
in  the  Xnremberg  district  archives.  He  stated,  "It  agrees  to 
a  remarkable  degree  with  the  Editio  Princeps  of  the  Augus- 
tana, although  it  makes  mention  of  none  but  Saxons."  AVhen 
on  July  20th,  I  investigated  the  matter  at  the  place  of  dis- 
covery, I  discovered  that  it  was  an  error  to  assume  any 
agreement  with  tlie  Editio  Princeps,  but  that  here  was  dis- 
covered a  link  hitherto  completely  unknown  in  the  history 
of  the  growing  Confession,  and  which,  since  we  can  deter- 
mine its  origin,  can  give  us  some  entirely  unexpected  infor- 
mation. 


'  Cf.   B  r  i  e  g  c  r  ,  as  above,  p.   278. 
'  C.  R.  II,   78   and  83. 

'Luther  to  Melanchthon  May  22nd  (C.  R.  II.  60):  "In  Apologia  quotidie 
mutamus  ;  locum  de  votis,  quia  erat  exilior  iuiusto,  exemi.  supposita  alia 
disputatione  eadem  de  re  paulo  uberiore.  Nunc  de  pote-state  claviura  etiam 
di.sputo.  VeHem  percurrisses  articulos  fidei,  in  quibus  si  nihil  putaveri.s  e.«Pe 
vitii  reliqua  utcunque  tractabimus.  Subinde  enim  mutandi  sunt  atque  ad 
occassiones    accomodandi." 

[X.  B. — In  place  of  Kolde's  lapsu.s  above,  read,   "Mel.  to  Luther." — T.  E.  S.] 


226         THE    LUTHER  AX    COXEESSIOXS. 
The  folloAving  is  the  version  of  the  <lociinieiit  :  '* 

[Here  follows,  in  Kolde's  German  volume,  the  text  of  the 
newly  discovered  manuscript.  In  this  work,  it  constitutes 
chapter  XVIII.] 

What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  this  manuscript  ?  It  needs 
no  argument  to  prove  that  we  have  an  early  redaction  of  the 
Augustana  before  us.  If  the  reader  is  observant  he  will  at 
once  receive  the  impression  that  he  is  perusing  a  translation , 
and  that  one  which  was  made  while  in  course  of  writing. 
The  many  passages  that  arc  crossed  out  and  corrected  (and 
which  are  carefully  reproduced  in  the  reprint),  with  few 
exceptions,  constitute  no  corrections  of  mistakes  in  writing, 
but,  as  is  clearly  discernible,  of  errors  in  translation.  And 
the  "German,"  too,  which  in  some  cases  evidently  clings  slav- 
ishly to  the  literal  rendering  of  terms  not  entirely  familiar 
to  the  layman,  and  in  others  employs  specifically  German 
idioms  to  facilitate  the  understanding  while  preserving  the 
peculiarities  of  the  foreign  pattern,  clearly  shows  that  we  arc 
dealing  with  a  translation  of  a  Lalin  original,  and  not  with 
an  earlier  emendation  of  the  German  text.  The  time  and 
origin  are  easily  determined  by  documentary  proof. 

We  know  from  a  letter  sent  by  the  Xuremberg  delegates 
(to  Augsburg),  Christ oph  Kress  and  Clemens  Volkamer,  to 
the  council  on  May  81st,  that  on  said  day  they  had  obtained 
the  "Articles  like  those  previously  composed  in  Latin,"  but 
without  preface  or  conclusion,  and  that  they  intended  to  have 


'"The  manuscript,  which  has  no  title  of  any  kind,  and  is  preserved  in  the 
Nuremberg  District  Archive  in  a  bundle  of  documents  bearing  the  signature 
S.  I.  L.  68.  Xo.  6  (recently  reported  by  Sdiornbaum,  Z.  K.-G.  xxvi,  p.  146), 
consists  of  16  folio  leaves  in  two  layers  of  four  sheets  each,  fastened  to- 
gether. The  flr.st  leaf  and  the  last  are  blank.  At  the  foot  in  the  margin 
are  found  signatures  in  part,  but  not  continued  A  ij.,  etc.  Dr.  Schornbaum 
had  the  kindness  to  copy  the  document  for  me,  which  is  hereby  most  grate- 
fully acknowledged.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  double  consonants  were  omitted 
and  the  initial  v's  were  changed  to  u.  the  spelling  of  the  manuscript  is  ac- 
curately reproduced.  It  was  necessary  also  to  mark  in  the  annotations  the 
words  crossed  out  or  corrected  in  the  text,  which  prove  that  we  have  a  trans- 
lation before  us.  (See  below  on  this  point.)  The  punctuation,  which  is 
almost  entirely  lacking  in  the  manuscript,  has  been  inserted  by  me. 


FIRST   DRAFT   OF   AUGUSTANA.  227 

them  copied  by  "Mr.  Jerome  Ebner's  sons"  and  sent  to  the 
Council  of  Xuremberg." 

This  was  done  on  June  ord,  on  wliich  day  they  wrote  home: 
"Herewith  we  send  your  worships  a  copy  of  tlie  Saxon  reso- 
lution in  Latin,  accompanied  by  the  preface  or  preamble. 
But  it  lacks  an  article  or  two  at  the  end  and  the  conclusion, 
since  the  Saxon  Theologl  are  still  at  work  on  these  parts."  '' 
According  to  this,  tlie  delegates  upon  their  instance  had  also 
obtained  the  preface,  and  it  is  easy  to  understand  from  its 
contents  that  Melanchthon  did  not  like  to  publish  it  too  soon. 
As  early  as  June  4th  (which  shows  how  quickly  messages 
were  carried  in  those  days  from  Augsburg  to  Nuremberg)  the 
resolution  was  in  the  hands  of  the  council,  "  and  on  the  same 
day  it  was  resolved  to  present  a  copy  to  the  theologians,  but  to 
provide  that  no  further  copy  be  made,  nor  that  it  be  put  into 
other  hands." 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  document  is  related  in  a 
letter  of  the  council  dated  June  15th  (resp.  17)  to  the  dele- 
gates, in  which  we  read :  "We  .  .  .  have  meanwhile,  since 
your  writing,  had  the  Latin  defence  of  the  Prince  Elector 
of  Saxony  translated  into  intrllir/itjle  German."  '°  A  resolu- 
tion of  the  council,  dated  June  10th,  also  informs  us  that 
a  no  less  personage  than  the  illustrious  Jerome  Baumgartner 
was  entrusted  with  this  task  and  excused  from  attendance  at 
the  sessions  of  the  council  during  the  course  of  his  work. 
And  this  industrious  man  had  finished  his  translation  in 
three  days,  for  as  early  as  June  llth  the  council  had  exam- 
ined the  contents  and  determined  to  have  its  delegates  in- 


"  Corpus  Reformatoritm   II,   78. 

"lb.,  83. 

"Vogt,  Die  Korrcspondcnz  dcs  'Silrnhergcr  Rats,  etc.  Mitt.  d.  Ver.  f.  d. 
Gesch.      Niirnbergs,    IV.    Heft.    (1882),  p.   13 

'*  "That  the  Latin  resolution  of  the  Saxons  be  presented  to  our  theo- 
logians and  previously  be  copied  ;  but  that  provision  be  made  that  it  be  not 
copied  nor  put  into  the  hands  of  any  one."  Resolution  of  the  council,  June 
4,    1530.      {District   Archive  at  Nuremberg.) 

"  V  o  g  t ,   p.    13. 


338         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

quire  of  the  Elector  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him  to 
have  the  signatures  of  the  councillors." 

Since  a  comparison  of  this  manuscript  with  other  writings 
definitely  known  to  have  been  produced  by  Baumgartner, 
prove  him  to  have  been  the  real  writer,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Augustana  text  before  us — I  shall  henceforth  desig- 
nate it  with  Na — is  the  translation  of  the  Latin  resolution 
produced  in  Nuremberg  for  the  information  of  the  council 
and  made  from  the  copy  sent  home  June  8rd  by  the  delegates. 

The  regrettable  circumstance  that  the  Latin  original  was 
not  preserved  is  easily  understood  from  the  fact  that  the 
council  did  not  preserve  it  in  its  archives,  but  sent  back  the 
Latin  articles  June  15th  (resp.  17)  to  the  delegates  "  to 
have  at  hand  if  needed."  "  At  any  rate,  the  discovery  of  tliis 
document  presents  us  (though  it  be  only  in  a  German  trans- 
lation) the  Augustana  according  to  the  stage  at  the  end  of 
May,  1530,  and  along  with  it  the  oldest  extant  redaction  of 
the  Confession,  togcMlier  with  Melanclitlion's  preface,  which 
was  hitherto  considered  lost — a  circumstance  which  gives 
peculiar  value  to  the  document. 


The  document  is  divided  into  the  preface,  the  articles  of 
doctrine,  18  J'csp.  17  (sec  below),  and  the  "controversial  arti- 
cles in  which  are  recounted  the  altered  and  abolished  abuses.'' 

Let  us  first  look  at  the  long  ])reface,  which  ought  more 
correctly  to  be  styled  an  introduction.  Up  to  the  present  we 
knew  only  the  first  short  draft  which  ]\[clanchthon  prefixed 

'•  Resolution,  Tuesday,  June  14th  : — "  That  the  delegates  at  Augsburg  be 
written  that  the  Saxon  resolution  pleased  a  lertain  council  and  that  they 
ascertain  from  the  Elector  whether  his  grace  would  permit  that  a  covincil 
affix  its  signatures,  and  that  they  also  send  the  decree  of  the  Elector."  To 
this  was  added  "  or  whether  discriminations  were  to  be  made."  Concerning 
the  above  negotiations  of  the  Nuremberg  theologians  in  the  matter  of  joining 
the  Elector,  Dr.  C.  Schornbaum  will  soon  present  more  information  in  a  book 
entitled   "  The   Politics   of  George   the   Pious." 

"  V  o  g  t  ,  as  above  p.  15,  before  the  last  Alinea  omitted  the  following  sen- 
tence from  the  original  (correspondence  of  the  Nuremberg  Council  101,  p. 
118)  : — "  We  return  to  you  your  copy  of  said  apology  sent  us  by  you,  that  you 
might  have  it  at  hand  in  case  of  necessity."  The  delegates  in  sending  it  liad 
requested  to  have  it  returned.      (C.  R.  II,  84.) 


FIRST   DRAFT   OF   AUGUSTANA.  239 

to  the  Torgau  Articles  with  the  remark:  "In  hanc  senten- 
tiara  prodest  proponere  prefacionem  longam  et  rhetoricara." 
We  also  knew  (if  we  may  repeat  the  statement)  that  on  his 
journey  to  Augsburg,  while  in  Koburg,  he  prepared  that  in- 
troduction of  which,  as  I  am  inclined  to  assume,  there  is 
preserved  to  us  a  fragment  in  a  writing  from  his  own  hand 
and  preserved  in  the  archive  at  Weimar,"  and  which  he  im- 
mediately after  his  arrival  in  Augsburg  elaborated  more 
rhetorically."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  Na  we  possess 
Melanchthon's  introduction  as  then  prepared,  although  we 
cannot  be  sure  whether  it  underwent  further  changes  until 
May  31st  or  not. 

And  it  is  characteristic  enough.  The  original  plan  of  the 
Torgau  Articles  is  still  recognizable ;  but  it  has  received  other 
contents.  In  order  to  obtain  a  historical  appreciation  of  this 
circuuistance  we  must  remember  that  it  was  written  under 
the  impression  caused  by  John  Eck's  well-known  writing  and 
the  preface  of  the  Ingolstadt  disputator,""  which  stirred  the 
Emperor  to  the  greatest  extremes.  If  ^lelanchthon,  as  he 
himself  recounts,  found  himself  induced  to  transform  the 
original  apology  into  a  Confessio,  he  considered  it  all  the 
more  stringent  to  give  his  introduction  a  strongly  apologetical 
character. 

He  begins  with  a  very  evident  captatio  benevolentice.  In 
the  face  of  his  calumniators  the  Elector  next  to  God  puts  all 
his  hope  upon  the  constantly  proven  goodness  and  clemency 
of  the  Emperor.  As  he  had  always  sought  the  peace  of 
Europe  without  pride,  insolence  or  lust  of  blood,  thus  in  the 
religious   controversies   he   had   constantly   shown   clemency 


"Forstemann  I,   109.     C.  R.  II,  63. 

"  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  C.  R.  II.  39  seq.  It  is  no  longer  believed  that 
the  document  printed  by  Forstemann  I,  639  seqq.  in  C  R.  IV,  999  seq., 
■which  in  its  whole  tenor  could  hardly  originate  with  Melanchthon,  is  a  draft  of 
the  exordium  prepared  in  Augsburg,  as  Bretschneider  presumed  and  P  I  i  1 1  I, 
524,  found  highly  creditable  Brieger's  view  (Torgau  Art.,  p.  296)  that  it  is 
probably  an  instruction  for  Dolzig  on  one  of  his  embassies  to  the  imperial 
court,   is  probably  nearer  the  truth. 

2«  See  Kolde,  as  above.  Preface  by  Plitt,  Einleit.  in  d.  Aug.,  I  (Er- 
langen  1867),  pp.  527  seq. 


230         THE    LUTHERAN'    CONFESSIONS. 

alone,  and  was  falsely  accused  of  lust  of  blood,  which  was 
evident  from  his  declared  readiness  to  hear  the  case.  And 
as  the  Elector  desired  nothing  more  than  thus  to  further  the 
glory  of  God  and  establish  universal  peace,  so  nothing 
would  be  better  pleasing  to  God,  than  if  the  Emperor  would 
use  his  power  to  unite  Christendom,  just  as  formerly  Theo- 
doric,  Charlemagne  and  Henry  II.  liad  done,  for  the  Holy 
Ghost  actually  admonished  princes  to  protect  the  faith.  And 
since  the  present  Emperor  was  endowed  with  no  fewer  virtues 
and  fear  of  God  than  said  princes,  and  even  far  surpassed 
them  in  power  and  splendor,  it  would  not  be  beneath  him  to 
hear  the  cause  of  Christendom  and  to  unite  it. 

But  before  the  doctrine  preached  in  the  Electorate  is  dis- 
cussed, the  attempt  is  made  to  prove  that  the  Elector  did 
not  further  the  new  doctrine  with  an  evil  purpose."  Never 
before  did  the  two  brothers,  Dukes  Frederick  and  Hans,  fall 
under  any  suspicion  or  evil  report,  for  they  were  kind  to 
every  one,  no  nuitter  what  his  condition,  and  they  have  built 
or  adorned  churches  and  institutions  to  a  large  degree  with 
their  own  means.  They  have  always  kept  their  allegiance  to 
the  Roman  emperors,  and  in  all  affairs  of  tlie  government 
they  supplied  noteworthy  aid  in  money  and  armature.  They 
never  entered  into  alliances  with  foreign  nations  or  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  government,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  and 
unity  of  Gernuiuy  they  never  gave  occasion  for  discord  to 
anyone,  but  in  the  face  of  great  provocation  they  were  pa- 
tient in  the  interest  of  peace,  and  more  than  once  ''by  their 
pains  and  exertions  they  brought  to  peace  and  quiet  others 
who  were  only  too  ready  in  arms."  How  coidd  it  be  thought 
that  the  Eh'ctor,  without  any  great  cause,  would  involve  his 
honor,  property,  children  and  grandcliildren  in  such  danger? 
What  advantage  could  accrue  to  him  from  such  dissension? 
It  was  hidden  from  him  what  troubles  he  would  assume  along 
Avith  this  matter.  It  did  not  originate  with  him,  but  with 
the  many  pious  souls,  who  were  aggrieved  because  Christian 

-■Compare  the  Introduction   of  the  Torgau   Art.,   Th.   Kolde,   p.   128. 


Fin  ST    DRAFT    OF   AUGUSTANA.  231 

doctrine  was  oppressed  and  obscured  with  human  opinions, 
useless  talk  and  daily  increasing  abuses,  while  no  one  was 
able  to  speak  concerning  repentance  and  the  grace  offered 
us  not  for  the  sake  of  our  satisfaction,  but  through  faitli  in 
Christ. 

Furtlierniore,  it  was  the  preaching  of  indulgences  in  Sax- 
ony, which  were  unduly  exalted,  that  induced  Luther  to  offer 
objections  in  several  pamphlets,  academically  as  it  were,  and 
not  before  the  people,  and  without  any  slander  of  the  Pope. 
But  his  o})p(jnents  at  once  stirred  up  strife  and  secured  his 
banishment  before  the  case  was  even  tried.  Luther  Avas  com- 
pelled to  give  answer  and  many  were  pleased  therewith,  not 
because  he  rejected  indulgences,  but  because  of  the  salutary 
and  comforting  doctrine  of  repentance  and  justification  by 
faith. 

Hence  it  seemed  a  grievous  and  sinful  thing  to  the  Elector 
to  undertake  anything  against  the  originators  of  this  doc- 
trine, especially  since  those  who  were  concerned  in  it  would 
not  venture  to  do  anything  in  the  matter,  and  the  changes 
in  religion  would  have  been  mucli  worse  if  the  learned 
preachers  had  been  removed.  For  before  Luther  wrote  any- 
thing, offensive  and  erroneous  doctrine  had  arisen,  and  would 
have  caused  dangerous  innovations  and  rebellion,  if  Luther 
had  not  prevented  it.  The  opponents  themselves,  who  now 
speak  much  more  guardedly  of  their  own  inventions,  must 
admit  that  there  is  much  that  is  wholesome  and  useful  in 
this  doctrine. 

It  is  evident  that  through  it  many  heresies  against  the 
holy  sacrament  have  been  suppressed.  Then,  too,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Anabaptists  against  the  holding  of  earthly  pos- 
sessions, against  the  courts,  the  power  of  the  civil  authorities 
and  all  civil  order  would  have  been  spread  much  more  widely 
had  not  the  hearts  of  men  been  strengtliened  by  this  (evan- 
gelical) doctrine.  It  is  even  unfounded  to  say  that  the 
Anabaptists  and  their  ilk  were  sprung  from  Luther's  doc- 
trine.     ''For   such   things   have  started   before   Luther   and 


233         THE    LUTHERAN    C 0 N F E ."< S 1 0 N S. 

abounded  most  in  those  places  where  there  was  a  dearth  of 
true  pastors  that  might  have  strengthened  and  guarded  the 
conscience  of  men  against  false  doctrine." 

The  matter  had  been  made  odious  chiefly  tlirough  the 
common  talk  that  the  Evangelicals  had  done  away  witli  all 
ceremonies  and  destroyed  all  sj)iritual  order.  On  the  con- 
trary, their  constant  endeavor  was  to  retain  them  with  all 
godly  fear,  so  that  it  could  be  said  that  the  mass  was  not 
celebrated  with  greater  devoutness  anywhere  else  in  Ger- 
many. They  followed  the  ordinary  custom,  too,  except  that 
along  with  the  Latin  singing  they  also  used  the  German. 
The  people  received  the  sacrament  with  greater  reverence  and 
oftener  than  formerly,  and  every  one  was  examined  before- 
hand, a  thing  which  formerly  could  hardly  be  done,  as  peo- 
ple sometimes  came  to  it  in  crowds.  Confession  is  also  ob- 
served, the  power  of  the  keys  is  lauded  in  public  preaching, 
and  the  sermons  are  pure  and  intelligible,  and  this  surely  is 
tlie  most  acceptable  ofi^ering  before  God. 

At  times  psalms  and  tlie  litany  are  sung,  not  for  the  sake 
of  lucre  or  money,  but  by  the  pupils  and  the  assembled  people, 
whereby  the  ignorant  receive  practice  and  are  earnestly  ad- 
monished to  prayer  through  God's  Word,  and  that  is  the 
])ur])ose  of  the  ceremonies. 

The  holy  days  are  also  observed  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  newer  ones,  with  which  more  enliglitened  men  have  long 
been  displeased.  To  this  is  added  a  very  useful  ceremony, 
which  in  former  times  was  very  diligeutly  observed  and  later 
on  was  completely  lost  sight  of,  owing  to  the  sloth  of  the 
pastors  and  the  people,  namely,  the  catechising  or  instruc- 
tion of  the  young.  For  this  the  boys  and  girls  are  gathered 
in  the  churches  and  the  principles  and  foundations  of  the 
Christian  faith  are  explained  to  them,  and  they  are  then 
examined  as  to  what  they  have  remembered.  All  this  is  of 
great  advantage  in  spreading  Christian  knowledge.  The 
churches,  too,  are  maintained  at  great  expense  to  the  govern- 
ment. 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUGUSTANA.  233 

This  is  the  ordering  of  the  cliu relies  in  the  Electorate  of 
Saxony,  and  the  Evangelicals  wished  nothing  better  than  that 
it  were  pleasing  to  the  bishops  also,  but  these  persecuted  it 
on  account  of  the  marriage  of  the  priests  and  such  reasons. 
"If  they,"  writes  Melanchthon,  "were  a  little  better  disposed, 
no  one  would  need  to  complain  that  the  order  of  the  Church 
is  broken.  It  is  unfounded  to  say  that  the  object  of  this  doc- 
trine is  to  suppress  spiritual  power."  If  the  bishops  would 
give  up  some  new  causes  of  complaint,  their  power  and  glory 
would  in  no  wise  be  diminishedj  and  they  would  not  need  to 
worry  about  their  possessions.  To  this  Melanchthon  adds 
very  characteristically,  "However,  some  others  more  than 
once  have  attempted  under  the  guise  of  a  reformation  to  de- 
prive the  ecclesiastics  of  their  possessions."  Also  the  Bohe- 
mians had  said  at  the  Council  of  Basle  that  ecclesiastics 
ought  not  to  have  any  possessions,  but  the  evangelical  doctrine 
was  that  every  Christian,  also  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastics, 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  own  property.  The  poverty  of 
bishops  does  not  help  the  Church.  The  essential  thing  is  that 
the  gospel  be  preached  in  its  truth  and  purity. 

Once  again  the  statement  is  emphasized  that  the  seditious 
attempts  to  rob  the  clergy  of  their  possessions  have  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Evangelicals,  who 
desire  only  that  Christians  be  instructed  in  pure  doctrine 
and  consciences  remain  undisturbed  by  unchristian  precepts. 
In  conclusion  it  is  stated:  "Thus  we  teach  that  all  civil 
ordinances  and  laws  under  spiritual  and  temporal  power  be 
considered  the  order  of  God  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  unity. 
ISTever  has  a  reformation  been  undertaken  so  utterly  without 
violence  as  this  one,  and  it  is  avcII  known  that  our  friends 
have  brought  others  to  peace  who  were  already  prepared  for 
an  uprising." 


This  is  Melanchthon's  significant  introduction.     How  di- 
plomatically stated  it  must  have  appeared  to  its  author,  and 


234         THE    LUTHERAN    COXFESSIOXS. 

how  little  it  was  so  in  reality !  Tlicre  is  not  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  political  situation,  and  the  qnestion  of  a 
eonncil,  which  was  so  prominent  in  the  minds  of  the  lead- 
ing men,  is  not  even  touched  upon.  Melanchthon  expects 
everything  from  the  Emperor.  Hence  his  purpose  is,  above 
all,  to  gain  him  and  to  reduce  the  contrasts  to  the  lowest 
degree. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  much  he  was  concerned  to  gain 
Luther's  consent  to  this  introduction,  which  is  almost  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  whole,  and  that  he  purposed  to  get  it  per- 
sonally by  traveling  to  Koburg.'"  And  Luther's  remark  in 
his  letter  to  the  Elector,  of  ]\Iay  loth,^  that  he  could  not  step 
so  softly  will  now  be  seen  to  apply  by  no  means  in  the  least 
degree  to  this  introduction.  And  surely  it  would  hardly  be 
possible  to  step  more  softly  than  was  done  here ! 

It  is  also  evident  that  this  introduction,  aside  from  its 
special  pointing  toward  Saxony,  was  by  no  means  framed  in 
such  a  way  as  to  be  a  common  confession,  and  could  not  even 
be  made  the  foundation  of  one.  The  appeal  to  the  Emperor 
as  the  founder  of  religious  peace  and  the  divinely  appointed 
protector  of  pure  doctrine,"  even  if  it  Avas  agreeable  to  the 
gentle  Xurembergers,  could  hardly  have  been  acceptable  to 
the  Landgrave.  And  the  manner  in  which  the  merits  of  the 
Elector  were  brought  to  light  at  the  expense  of  others,  and 
with  almost  unmistakable  allusion  to  Philipp's  procedure  in 
the  Pack  Conspiracy  and  his  propensity  for  entering  into 
alliances,  even  outside  the  Empire,  was  dwelt  upon,  must 
actually  have  proven  offensive  to  other  Evangelical  Estates. 

"Letter  to  Luther,  May  4th:  "I  made  the  introduction  to  our  apology 
somewhat  more  rhetorical  than  I  had  written  it  at  Koburg.  But  I  shall  bring 
it  to  you  myself,  or  if  the  Prince  will  not  permit  it,  shall  send  it."  C.  R. 
II,   39   seq. 

2'  D  e  We  t  t  e  IV,  17. 

"The  document  mentioned  before,  which  most  probably  came  from  the 
Saxon  chancery,  and  which  must  have  contained  instructions  for  Dolzig,  shows 
that  the  entourage  of  the  Elector  very  soon  gave  up  this  view.  For  in  this 
the  Emperor  is  to  be  admonished  as  follows :  "  That  your  Majesty  would 
condescend  to  be  content  with  the  obedience  of  the  temporal  sword  since 
your  Majesty  has  no  command  of  God  over  the  spiritual  sword  to  rule  over 
souls  and  therefore  owe  it  to  God  not  to  usurp  it  nor  to  rule  or  con.strain 
the  so'ils  to  believe  thus  or  so."     F  6  r  s  t  e  m  a  n  n  1,  64. 


FIRST   DRAFT   OF   AUGUSTAN  A.  235 

This  must  have  sealed  the  fate  of  this  introduction  in  the 
days  in  Avhich  confederate  action  was  proposed. 

We  can  trace  this  even  now,  and  many  statements  in  the 
documents  referring  to  this  matter  are  only  now  becoming 
intelligible  in  connection  with  Melanchthon's  document. 


The  first  one  who  uttered  the  desire  to  subscribe  to  the 
Saxon  Confession  must  have  been  the  Landgrave.**  But  this 
could  have  been  mentioned  only  in  conversation  with  the 
theologians  with  whom  he  was  treating  concerning  an  alli- 
ance with  the  Zwinglians"  without  any  knowledge  of  the 
Apology/'  and  by  no  means  officially.  At  ieast  Christopher 
Kress,  the  Xuremberg  delegate  (whom  he  innnediately, 
upon  his  arrival,  sought  to  win  for  the  thought  of  urging  a 
council  as  such,  and  by  no  means  to  permit  the  estates  of  the 
Empire  to  judge  the  matters  of  faith),  understood  the  Land- 
grave to  have  said  "that  his  Grace  had  not  specially  conversed 
with  the  Elector  about  it,  and  also  thought  that  they  were  not 
on  the  best  of  terms  with  each  other.""' 

Also  the  Nuremberg  delegates  who,  like  those  from  Reut- 


-^  Melanchthon  writes  as  early  as  May  22nd  :  "  Nunc  Macedo  agit  ut  orationi 
nostrorum  subscribat  "  (C.  R.  II,  60.)  This  must  refer  to  the  Confessio, 
although  the  term  oratio  is   surprising. 

^'  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Melanchthon's  information  came  from  Urban 
Rhegius.  who  writes  to  Luther  on  May  21st  about  a  recent  conversation  with 
the  Landgrave  Philipp  and  sums  up  his  opinion  thus  (  K  o  1  d  e ,  Analecta 
LiUherana,  p.  12-1  ;  E  n  d  e  r  s  VII,  341)  :  "  In  short  I  formed  the  hope  con- 
cerning the  Hessian  that  he  would  by  no  means  reject  the  sane  counsels  of 
Philipp  and  others."  Compare  with  this  Melanchthon's  report  (C.  R.  II,  60)  : 
"  Now  Macedo  is  treating  about  subscribing  to  our  oration  and  seems  able 
to  be  won  over  to  our  side;  but  we  need  your  letters.  (Both  documents  may 
have  been  sent  to  Luther  simultaneously.)  The  only  question  is,  whether 
the  immediately  preceding  sentence  of  Melanchthon,  "  All  at  once  the  articles 
mu.'it  be  changed  and  accommodated  to  circumstances  "  must  be  referred  to 
the  Landgrave's  wish  also  to  subscribe  to  the  Apology.  At  any  rate  there 
is  in  Na  no  trace  of  deference  to  his  conception. 

="  This  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  Nurembergians, 
although  Chancellor  Bruck  had  promised  to  send  them  a  copy  of  the  docu- 
ment upon  his  return  from  Luther  (C.  R.  IT,  51),  even  though  they  had 
presented  their  oion  counsel,  did  not  at  once  receive  it. 

='C.  R.  II,  52. 


336         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

lingen,"  had  received  only  the  general  instructions  to  side 
with  the  Elector  in  matters  of  faith,  did  not  begin  definite 
negotiations  until  thej  had  ISTa  in  hands/"  Above  all  things, 
the  Elector  himself  in  the  heginning,  so  far  as  can  be  seen,  did 
not  care  at  all  about  joining  forces.  When  Chancellor  Briick 
informed  him  of  the  desire  of  the  Nurembergians  to  see  the 
counsel,  he  sent  them  the  very  plain  answer :  ''His  electoral 
highness  does  not  care  to  have  many  counsellors  in  such  an 
affair,  for  the  devil  (and  the  reporter  adds  these  were  his 
very  words),  was  fond  of  mixing  in  counsel."  It  is  easily 
seen  that  he  wished  to  act  alone,  and  especially  to  brook  no 
interference.  He  had  independently  and  secretly,  without 
consulting  his  theologians,  in  the  first  days  after  his  arrival 
in  Augsburg,  sent  a  translation  of  the  Schwabach  Articles 
to  Innsbriick  to  convince  the  Emperor  of  his  orthodoxy. 

Neither  did  the  Ansbach  counsellors  advance  any  farther. 
As  their  partisanship  up  to  date  made  natural,  they  sought 
to  get  into  contact  with  the  Elector  probably  soon  after  the 
Margrave's  arrival  on  May  24th.'' 

As  late  as  June  8th  Chancellor  Vogler  conversed  with 
Kress  on  the  ''Defect  tliat  the  Saxon  document  was  offered 
only  in  the  name  of  the  Elector,"  while  his  lord  thought  best 
to  "have  it  offered  in  the  name  of  all  the  princes  and  cities 
that  are  in  unity  in  the  articles  of  faith."  He  thought,  and 
now  only  can  we  understand  this  demand,  since  we  have  dis- 
covered Melanchthon's  recounting  of  the  merits  of  the  Elector 


"C  R.,  II,  57.  Ad.  Weiss'  Diarium  in  Georgii,  Uffcnhcimcr  Neben- 
stunden.  Schwabach  1743,  p.  683,  May  5  :  "  The  Reutlingians  in  these  days  are 
assuring  the  princes,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  ours  (i.  e.,  George  of 
Brandenburg),  that  they  will  persevere  with  them  throughout,  in  common 
risk  and   doctrine." 

•oKolde,  p.  33  note  4. 

«'  C.  R.  II,  p.  53. 

«  B  r  i  e  g  e  r  ,  p.  392.  C.  Strange,  Kurfiirst  Johanns  Glaubensbekcnnt- 
nlss  vom  Mai  1530.      Theol.  Studien  u.  Kritikev,   1903,  pp.   459  seq. 

^  C.  B.  69.  That  the  Margrave  from  the  beginning  intended  to  go  with  the 
Elector  and  Nuremberg  ("  as  we  are  in  unity  with  them  in  the  articles  of 
our  holy  faith  and  the  order  of  visitation  ")  is  proven  by  the  instruction 
to  his  councillors  on  March  24th.  Cf.  Forstemann  I,  119  seqq.  (Ad- 
ditional information  may  be  expected  from  Schornbaum,  Die  Politik 
Qeorgs  des  Frommen,  which   js  to  appear  soon.) 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUGUSTANA.  237 

• — that  "III  {he  hilruduclion  ivJiatever  any  one  had  done  for 
his  imperial  inajesty  arid  the  empire,  might  he  specified  and 
mentioned  in  particular,  where  it  could,  not  he  done  in  gen- 
eral, for  the  sake  of  every  prince  and  estate/'  This  shows  in 
what  manner  the  Margrave  and  the  ISTurcnibcrg  delegates 
wished  to  remodel  Melanehthon's  introdnction. 

This  Avas  not  the  case  with  the  Landgrave,  who,  a  few  days 
later,  seems  to  have  made  earnest  endeavors  to  effect  a  union 
with  the  Elector.  We  have  no  direct  proof  for  this,  but  it 
is  borne  out  bv  the  Landgrave's  correspondence  of  the  period 
from  June  llth-loth  with  Mclauchthon  and  Brcnz  "  concern- 
ing the  ^'Counsel  regarding  the  division  of  the  sacrament," 
which  had  been  sent  him  from  Strassburg.  Neither  can  we 
affirm  with  certainty  whether  Philipp  already  knew  the  word- 
ing of  the  Saxon  "counsel"  with  Melanehthon's  introduc- 
tion;''' but  he  did  know  that  Melanchthon  intended  to  exclude 
the  Zwinglians,  and  to  grant  the  Emperor  the  right  of  deci- 
sion in  the  religious  question  (a  thing  which  can  refer  only 
to  the  "counsel"),  and  to  substitute  the  Diet  mediately  for  the- 
Council. 

He  protests  against  both.  "If  this  here  is  to  be  a  council, 
it  will  undoubtedly  be  a  council  such  as  there  has  never  been 
before.  And  if  all  of  us  who  confess  Christ  were  to  wait  for 
the  resolution  to  be  adopted  here,  I  must  be  mistaken  in  my 
reading  of  the  Scripture."  '*  And  it  really  appears  as  if  he 
meant  to  repudiate  Melanehthon's  statement  in  the  introduc- 
tion, when  he  refers  to  Luther's  teaching  that  "the  authority 
of  the  government  does  not  extend  so  far;  but  that  the  gov- 


s' The  correspondence  C.  R.  II.  92  seqq.  As  to  the  origin  of  the  "  counsel  " 
— Melanchthon  says  only  :  "  The  writer  of  said  document  "  in  loc.  p.  94 — 
V  i  r  c  K  ,  Strassburg's  Politische  Korrcspondens  I,  447 — Brenz,  who,  with  Adam 
Weiss,  was  invited  to  dinner  at  the  Landgrave's,  June  13,  had  a  verbal  dis- 
cussion with  him  dc  re  sacramentaria.  Cf.  Weiss'  Diarium  in  G  e  o  r  g  i  i  , 
Vffenheimer  Nebcnstunden,  p.  689. 

»•  One  remark  is  even  against  it,  namely  p.  99,  where  he  says :  "  And 
I  hope  by  no  means  that  you  intend  to  compel  the  Zwinglians  by  force  fo 
accept  your  faith  or  that  you  will  pass  them  by  on  account  of  their  faith  ;  .  .  . 
I  do  not  think  you  are  capable  of  that,  although  much  is  told  me." 

»•  C.  R.  II,  98. 
19 


238         THE   LUTHERAN    CO N FE S S 10 N f^. 

ernment  must  rule  only  over  the  body  and  property,  and  not 
over  souls  and  consciences."  Or  again,  in  answering  the 
attack  upon  the  Zwinglians  (in  Melanchthon's  letter:  "what- 
ever foreign  following  they  may  have")  just  as  if  to  mini- 
mize to  the  utmost  Melanchthon's  assertion  in  the  introduc- 
tion that  tlie  Elector  never  allied  himself  M'ith  foreign  nations 
or  the  enemies  of  the  empire,"  he  very  strikingly  remarks 
that  the  "Elector  lias  also  made  alliances  with  princes  and 
cities,  and  daily  seeks  such.""*  At  any  rate,  "the  confederation 
and  the  invitation  to  a  council  °'  were  the  two  points  which 
Landgrave  Philipp  originally  established  as  the  conditions 
for  his  going  with  those  of  Wittenberg."" 

It  is  upon  this  point  that  negotiations  must  have  been 
entered  the  next  few  days  following,  after  the  question  of 
preaching  clearly  showed  the  menacing  danger,  and  made 
the  Saxons  more  ready  to  include  their  former  allies  in  their 
confession;  but  unfortunately  we  are  not  informed  as  to  par- 
ticulars in  this  matter.  On  June  15th  the  question  of  going 
•together  was  settled  in  principle.  At  least  Melanchthon,  in 
the  "German"  text  which  the  Nurembergians  then  sent  home, 
had  put  "a  common  word  that  could  be  applied  to  all  estates"" 
in  place  of  the  statement  "of  the  Latin  text  that  in  the 
Electorate  of  Saxony  this  or  that  was  preached  or  observed;" 
but  the  work  on  the  introduction  and  conclusion  had  been 
postponed.  Evidently  they  were  delaying  the  decision  on 
Melanchthon's  introduction,  which  the  Elector  must  have 
been  very  loathe  to  give  up,  and  much  to  their  discourage- 

»'  Vid.  Chap.  XVIII. 
^  C.  R.   II,   99. 
"/&.,  II,  92  scq. 

"A  third  question,  but  one  in  which  thp  Landgrare  did  not  stand  alone, 
was  the  one  concerning  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops.  What  Melanchthon 
wrote  in  regard  to  it  to  Camerarius,  June  19th  :  "  .lurisdictionem  totam  «a)  to 
a^iufia  reddo  Episcopis.  Hoc  fortasse  urit  quosdam  qui  aegre  patiuntur  sibi 
libertatem  suam  adimi  "  (C.  R.  II,  119),  does  not  agree  with  his  statements 
in  Na  nor  in  A,  but  with  the  introduction.  How  far  he  was  ready  to  go  in 
this  matter — perhaps  even  then — is  best  seen  in  his  letter  to  C-imerarius, 
Aug.   31st.     n.,  334. 

*'  Ih.,  105.  This  German  text,  whirh  wonld  be  an  important  document  for 
the  history  of  the  text,  has  not  yet  been  di.scovcred. 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUGUSTANA.  2:50 

iiK'Ut  licit licr  the  Margrave  nor  the  Nuremberg  delegates  re- 
ceived any  information  on  the  condition  of  the  question." 

But  on  the  very  day  on  wliich  Kress  wrote  this,  the  com- 
mon danger  had  brought  the  princes  closer  together.  Together 
the  Elector,  the  Margrave,  the  Duke  of  Liineburg  and  the 
Landgrave,  being  invited  to  a  "particular  apartment"  by  the 
Emperor,  had  maintained  their  evangelical  position  in  the 
question  about  preaching  and  the  processions.*'  They  must 
now  stand  together.  And  in  the  remarkable  opinion  of  Chan- 
celloi'  \'<)gler,  delivered  June  16th,  on  the  preaching  question, 
and  in  Mliicli  he  advises  to  deliver  to  the  Emperor  the  doc- 
trinal articles  of  the  confession  so  as  to  convince  him  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  Protestants,  the  evangelical  princes  at  least 
are  denoted  as  a  fixed  confessional  group.  It  bears  tlie  title 
''Certain  considerations  why  my  most  clement  lord,  the 
Elector  of  Saxony;  Margrave  George,  of  Brandenburg;  Duke 
Ernest  and  Dtike  Francis,  of  Brunswick  and  Liineberg; 
Philipp  Landgrave,  of  Hessen,  and  Wolfgang,  Prince  of  An- 
halt,  cannot  consent  to  postpone  or  set  aside  the  preaching  of 
his  electoral  and  princely  grace."  i^ot  until  June  IStli  did 
the  Xuremberg  delegates  receive  the  promise  from  the  Elector 
and  the  Margrave  "to  receive  them  in  this  matter  along  with 
his  grace."  "  Besides,  if  the  observation  of  the  delegates  was 
correct,  that  "the  Margrave  in  this  promise  was  more  frank 
and  friendly  with  the  Saxons,"  we  may  conclude  that  the 
Elector  had  consented  against  his  will.  Xow,  however,  the 
question  concerning  the  introduction  and  the  invitation,  which 
was  not  yet  forthcoming,  had  to  become  a  more  burning  one. 

The  Landgrave  must  have  convinced  himself  that  the  Swiss 


■*-  "  Since  there  is  such  a  delay  ■with  the  introduction  and  conclusion  and 
no  reference  is  made  either  to  Margrave  George  or  to  us,  we  think  that  there 
might  be  a  way  to  negotiate  with  Margrave  George  and  then  in  the  name 
of  his  princely  grace  and  your  grace,  a  start  be  made  with  the  Elector." 
— C.  R.,  II,  105. 

"lb.,   106.      Th.   Kolde,  3Iartin  Luther,   II,   342. 

*'Forstemann,  I,  275.  The  paper  sent  to  the  Emperor  in  this  matter 
the  next  day  bears  the  same  signatures,  except  that  of  Duke  Francis  of  Liine- 
burg.— C.   R.   II,    106. 

«7b.,  112. 


240         TEE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  Highlanders  Avere  not  to  be  included  in  the  confession, 
and  in  matters  of  the  ''brotherhood"  he  had  already  yielded 
very  mnch,  when  in  his  writing  to  the  Emperor  concerning 
the  postponement,  of  the  preaching  he  subscribed  the  sen- 
tence: ''Thus  they  make  a  trne  report  concerning  several 
doctrines,  which  (presented  to  the  people  for  the  sake  of  the 
sacrament  and,  therefore,  difficult,  and  for  the  sake  of  better- 
ing them  as  we  trust  in  God)  it  would  prove  detrimental,  if 
our  preacher  were  to  cease  preaching,  though  we  might  agree 
to  such  postponement,  and  we  would  judge  our  own  conscience 
before  God,  if  we  were  guilty  of  such  evil."  " 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  seen  from  the  latter  occur- 
rences, what  great  danger  it  involved  to  leave  the  decision  to 
the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  as  Melanchthon  desired  in  his 
great  reliance  upon  the  clemency  and  goodness  of  the  Em- 
peror. Secondly,  it  must  be  observed  that  only  a  dependence 
upon  the  expected  council,  which  was  the  Landgrave's  chief 
demand,  promised  sure  defence.  Besides  the  desire  of  the 
Margrave  and  the  Xurembergians  as  first  expressed,  to  exalt 
their  services  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Empire  in  the  same 
manner  as  ^Melanchthon  had  done  for  the  Elector,  proved 
unfeasible  for  formal  reasons.  Thus  the  compromise  was 
effected,  which  we  possess  in  Brlick's  masterly  address. 

Melanchthon's  introduction  was  entirely  set  aside.  With 
it  were  dropped  all  of  its  more  or  less  open  attacks  upon  the 
Sacramentarians  and  the  declarations  upon  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishops  which  could  hardly  be  harmonized  with  the 
sentiment  expressed  at  the  last  Diet  of  Spires.  Even,  as  may 
here  be  remarked,  the  attack  upon  the  Sacramentarians,  which 
may  be   found   in  Xa    in  the   article  on  the  Mass,*    was " 


<«F6rstpmann  I,   288. 

«  Vid.  Art.  on   the   Mass  in   Chapt.   XVIII. 

•*  In  a  weakened  form  there  is  a  recollection  of  it  in  the  later  German 
text  at  the  close  of  the  first  paragraph  :  "  At  the  same  time  instruction  is 
given  against  erroneous  teaching  of  the  sacrament."  This  formula,  which 
is  so  general  that  the  Landgrave  and  even  a  Zwinglian  could  accept  it,  must 
surely  be  due  to  a  compromise,  for  shortly  before,  Spalatin's  text  had  it 
"  At    the    same    time    instruction    is    given    against    the    wrong    and    erroneous 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUGUISTANA.  211 

omitted,    although,    much    to   the   Landgrave's   sorrow,    the 
Tenth  Article  retained  the  original  phraseology. 

But  he  was  much  more  successful  in  regard  to  the  other 
point.  In  an  entirely  husinesslike  way  it  is  mentioned  in 
reference  to  the  call  to  a  Diet,  that  the  Evangelical  Estates 
present  their  "Opinion  and  View  on  account  of  errors,  schisms 
and  abuses,"  and  offer,  if  the  other  Estates  did  as  much  (of 
which  ^lehuiclithon's  introduction  says  notliing),  to  confer 
with  them  "in  an  amicable,  harmonious  manner."  At  the 
same  time,  quite  in  agreement  with  the  Landgrave,  and 
referring  to  the  Diet  transactions  of  recent  years,  they  recall 
the  declaration  of  the  Emperor  that  he  did  not  purpose  to 
let  the  Diet  render  a  decision  in  matters  of  faith,  but  repeat- 
edly stated  that  he  would  request  a  council  from  the  Pope. 

For  this  reason  the  Evangelical  Estates  "superfluously" 
ofi'er  to  take  i)art  in  such  a  common,  free  Christian  council, 
and  renew  their  former  appeal  to  one.  Thus  the  "offer" 
which  summarized  their  demands  and  positions,  and  for 
which  the  Xurembergians  continued  to  wait,"  and  which 
originally  was  to  have  been  placed  in  the  conclusion,  was  put 
in  the  introduction  where  it  belonged,  and  they  contented 
tliemselves  with  a  short  epilog,  which  perhaps  was  not  added 
until  the  final  recension  on  June  23rd.  It  cannot  as  yet  be 
fully  determined  from  the  documents  extant  when  the  intro- 
duction was  written,  but  it  might  be  certain  that  the  distinct 
repudiation  of  the  thought  to  let  the  Diet  decide  on  a  matter 
of  religion  was  occasioned  °"  in  part  by  the  imperial  proposi- 
tion on  the  opening  of  the  Diet  on  June  20th,  and  agreed 


teaching    of    the    sacrament,"    which     could     refer    only    to    the    Zwinglians. 
(  F  o  r  s  t  e  m  a  n  n  ,    1,    :!:J1.) 

*•  "  To  write  the  delegates  from  Augsburg  to  send  down  as  quickly  as  pos- 
sible the  beginning  and  endiiug  of  the  Saxon  Council.  Friday,  June  17th". 
(Council   resolution). 

'"  "  And  therefore  his  majesty  is  graciously  disposed  to  consider  and  dia- 
pose  of  the  matter  in  this  manner,"  etc.  (Forstemann  I,  308.  Cf.  also 
the  remark  of  the  Strassburg  delegates.  V  i  r  c  k  ,  PoliHache  Korrespondetiz  I, 
458:     ■'  And  thus  they  are  silent  concerning  their  oft  promised  council  "). 


242         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

upon  in  the  common  deliberations  of  the  Evangelical  Estates 
on  June  21st.'' 


[From  the  foregoing  results  as  well  as  from  a  detailed 
comparison  of  the  texts  in  Xa  and  A^  it  becomes  evident 
that  the  production  of  the  text  which  was  read  to  the  Em- 
peror at  the  Augsburg  Diet,  was  a  matter  of  painstaking 
labor  involving  many  alterations  in  the  original  manuscripts. 
We  are  now  in  a  position  to  state  with  much  ground  for  con- 
fidence by  what  process  certain  expressions  found  their  way 
into  A  and  to  whom  certain  statements  were  due.  If  we  were 
presenting  the  original  text  as  Kolde  did  in  regard  to  Xa,  it 
would  be  possible  to  build  up  the  argument  critically.  But 
as  these  texts  are  not  here  at  hand  such  an  investigation 
would  prove  almost  useless.  We  therefore  confine  ourselves 
to  the  summarized  statement  of  the  results  of  the  investigation 
as  presented  by  Kolde,  being  convinced  that  the  facts  in  the 
ease  will  bear  out  his  conclusions,  as  he  has  stated  them  in 
the  following]  : — 

After  these  detailed  investigations  it  will  not  be  necessary 
to  point  out  again  the  importance  of  the  Augustana  text 
newly  acquired  in  Xa.  The  only  thing  now  is  to  combine  the 
old  and  the  new  and  to  state  concisely  the  conclusions  which 
we  now  reach  as  to  the  gradual  development  of  the  text  of 
the  Augustana. 

An  earlier  shorter  introduction  developing  the  introduc- 
tory remarks  in  the  Torgau  Articles  and  which  is  not  extant, 
was  written  by  Melanchthon  in  Koburg  and  a  later  and  much 


»'  C.  R.  II.  124.  That  the  Landgrave  did  not  definitely  join  until  the 
end.  may  be  inferred  not  only  from  a  remark  of  Melanchthon  C.  R.  II.  125 
(155),  but  also  from  the  fact  that,  e.  g..  the  manuscripts  Dresden  2  and 
Koburg  which  date  from  the  time  before  the  final  revi.sion,  do  not  name 
Philip  of  Hessen  among  the  Confessors,  which  (as  Tscliackert  says, 
Archiv  fiir  Ref.  Gpsch.  II,  p.  62)  can  not  be  caused  by  inexactness  or  from  the 
fact  that  some  one  subsequently  added  the  subscriptions  from  memory.  (This 
is  assumed  for  Dresden  2.)  This  is  disproven  from  the  fact  that  the  Elector 
Francis  of  Liineburg  and  Albrecht  of  Mansfield  are  wanting,  although  in  their 
case  it  might  be  and  was  a  question  as  to  whether,  according  to  their  position, 
they  were   elujible  to   appearance  with   the   real   Estates  of   the   empire. 


F1ES7'    DBA  FT    OF    AUGUST  AN  A.  -U:) 

fuller  one  during  the  first  days  of  the  stay  at  Augsburg. 
Wo  possess  it,  tlioiigh  perhaps  with  a  few  modifications,  in 
Na.  As  a  result  of  the  transactions  carried  on  concerning  a 
confederation  of  the  Evangelical  Estates  and  probably  not 
before  the  21st  ^"  it  was  supplanted  by  the  Praefatio  written 
bv  Briick  in  German  and  translated  into  Latin  by  Justus 
Jonas. 

The  Latin  edition  of  the  Confession  in  its  so  far  earliest 
form  as  presented  to  us  in  2^a  comprised  XIX  articles  in  the 
first  part  (resp.  XVIII  as  Melanchthon  had  contracted  VII 
and  VIII  into  one)  but  in  such  a  way  that  Articles  IV  and  V 
and  XIV-XVI  wei-e  transposed.  Hence  Article  XX,  concern- 
ing 'Taith  and  Good  Works''  was  lacking,  as  we  knew  befoi'e, 
and  beside  this  to  our  surprise,  Article  XXI,  provided  for 
in  the  Torgau  Articles  concerning  ''  The  Invocation  of 
Saints."  The  XX.  Article  is  first  mentioned  in  the  German 
version,  not  extant,  which  the  Xuremberg  delegates  sent 
home  on  June  15th.  From  the  letter  which  they  sent  with  it, 
we  learn  that  ''  it  was  not  yet  done  into  Latin  "  **  hence  its 
Latin  form  was  given  shape  after  the  15th.  The  first  Ger- 
man one  which  was  finally  after  very  many  but  stylistic 
changes,"  adopted  in  the  Augustana,  is  extant  in  Spalatin's 
text.  The  XXI.  Article  concerning  the  ''  Invocation  of 
Saints,"  which  was  Avritten  in  Latin  originally,  just  as  the 
later  inserted  version  in  Spalatin's  text  is  only  a  translation 
of  the  Latin  one  and  was  afterward  expunged,"  appears 
first  in  the  I.  JVIarburg  version  and  the  French  translation 
which  was  made  with  it  as  a  basis."*     The  German  version 


"  In  connection  with  the  very  late  addition  of  the  Praefatio  it  must  also  be 
observed  that  it  was  added  only  as  a  supplement  to  the  Latin  Ansbaeh  text. 
Of.  T  s  c  h  ac  k  e  r  t  ,  p.  41. 

'»C.  R.  II,  115. 

"To  this  was  added  (Cf.  Forstemann  I,  3."6)  the  passage  in  A: 
"  For  it  is  taught  concerning  faith  in  Hebrews  11, — as  also  the  devils  know." 
In  T  s  c  h  a  c  k  e  r  t  ,  p.  110,  9-19.  The  quotation  in  Forstemann  I,  326 
is  omitted:  "Since  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  through  faith,  as  St.  Paul  says 
in   the  first  chapter  of  the   Epistle  to   the  Hebrews." 

"Forstemann    I,    322. 
"7b.,  367. 


244         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

sent  June  15th  to  Xuremberg  did  not  contain  it,  since  only 
the  article  on  ''Faith  and  Good  Works"  is  mentioned  as  being 
added  to  Xa.  Hence  in  its  German  setting  (A)  it  must  have 
gotten  into  the  Confession  as  the  last  article. 

The  Summa  at  the  close  of  the  iirst  part  in  its  Latin  ver- 
sion is  found  in  its  original  form  in  Xa.  The  second  and 
final  form  (aside  from  some  unimportant  variants)  we 
possess  in  Marburg  I  (and  the  French  text). 

For  since  these  manuscripts  in  the  order  and  contents  of 
the  articles  of  faith  which  they  alone  contain,  show  an  essen- 
tially different  form,  preparing  the  text  of  xV  and  almost 
identical  with  it,  their  text  originated  after  Xa  and  most 
certainly  not  before  June  8th,  for  at  this  date  the  Xuremberg 
delegates  and  the  Ansbach  counsellors  know  nothing  else 
than  that  the  Confession  is  presented  in  the  name  of  the 
Elector  alone.'''  The  copy  itself  (resp.  the  French  transla- 
tion) must  have  been  made  about  June  15th,  i.  c,  at  the  time 
when  the  Evangelical  Estates  were  beginning  to  draw  to- 
gether. And  the  fact  that  it  contains  only  the  Articles  of 
Faith  is  easily  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  the  Land- 
grave in  view  of  his  relations  to  the  Zwinglians  must  have 
desired  above  all  things  to  learn  to  know  the  Articles  of 
Faith,  and  also  that  the  "Articles  in  Dispute  "  were  still  un- 
dergoing the  most  numerous  alterations. 

The  two  oldest  Gertnan  texts  of  the  Articles  of  Faith,  are 
(as  has  been  recently  emphasized  with  justice)  "  the  one  of 
Spalatin  and  the  first  Ansbach."  These  too  did  not  receive 
their  final  form  before  June,  since  they  both  approach  the 
type  of  A,  and  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  Melanchthon  pre- 
sented his  Latin  text  to  the  Xuremberg  delegates  on  May 
31st  while  he  had  already  undertaken  such  important  alter- 
ations extending  even  to  the  arrangement  of  the  articles  in 
his  German  version,   and  because  in   them  the   Elector  no 


"C.  R.  II,  88. 

^' Ct.    Th.   Brleger.    Zur   Geschiohte   des   Augsburger  Reichstages,   p.    17. 

"Forstemann    I,    310    seqq.    and   343    seqq. 


FIRST   DRAFT    OF   AUOUSTAXA.  215 

longer  appears  in  them  as  the  sole  confessor.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  it  is  now  proven  that  the  Anspach  text  was  already 
then  in  existence  and  must  have  served  as  an  enclosure  with 
Chancellor  Vogler's  Opinion ''"  composed  June  IGth  in  the 
form  preserved  in  the  manuscript  at  Xnremberg  as  Forste- 
mann  was  the  first  to  conjecture." 

Since,  further,  Spalatin's  text  is  considerably  closer  to 
Xa,  as  shown  above,  though  much  of  Xa  is  already  omitted 
or  altered,  the  view  stated  first  by  G.  G.  Weber,"  will  prevail, 
according  to  which  Sp.  is  older  than  Ansbach  I,  but  of  no 
earlier  origin  than  tlic  first  week  in  June.  Thus  we  would 
possess  two  ditferent  versions  of  the  German  text  of  the  Arti- 
cles of  Faith  from  the  first  half  of  June ;  but  the  Summary 
in  only  one  version,  since  it  is  not  given  in  Spalatin's  manu- 
script,'^ and  that  version  wath  the  exception  of  slight  varia- 
tions in  the  same  form  in  which  it  afterwards  entered  into 
the  Confession. 

For  the  ''Articles  in  Dispute  "  or  the  second  part,  we  know 
the  Latin  version  only  in  the  form  recognizable  in  Xa  and 
the  final  one  in  A.  The  former  German  version  which  corre- 
sponds to  Xa  is  lacking  completely  both  for  the  Articles  of 
Faith  and  the  second  part.  But  for  Article  XXYIII  we 
have  the  earliest  form  in  Forstemann,  I.  87.  While  then  all 
the  other  unfinished  German  and  Latin  manuscripts  that 
originated  before  the  final  determination,  show  no  new  type 
even  thongh  they  differ  in  particulars,  Spalatin's  text  un- 
doubtedly assumes  the  mean  between  the  text  to  be  deter- 
mined for  the  time  of  Xa  and  the  later  ones  presenting  in  the 
main  the  form  of  A. 


<">  Forstemann  I,  274.     Ad  rem  below. 

"  The  same  type  is  found  in  Hannover  I.  Cf.  P.  T  s  c  h  a  c  k  e  r  t  ,  Neue 
Untersuchungen  iiber  Augu.stanahandschriften.  Archiv  fiir  Ref.  Gescli.  II 
(1904)   69  seqq. 

«  Krit.   Gesch.   der  Aiigsb.   Konf.   I,   310. 

«'The  fact  that  Spalatin's  text  does  not  reproduce  the  Summary,  i.s  no  proof 
that  it  did  not  then  exist,  as  B  r  i  e  g  e  r  ,  Zur  Gesch.  des  Augsb.  Reichstags 
p.  18  seems  to  assume  We  know  from  Na  that  it  existed  in  Latin.  Spalatin 
must  have  omitted  the  passage,  because  he  knew  that  there  was  something 
missing  after  Art.  XIX  and  later  when  Art.  XX  (and  XXI)  came  to  him,  forgot 
to  insert  it,  or  did  not  do  so,  for  want  of  space. 


246         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  Spalatin's  manuscript  is  noteworthy  from  still  another 
relation.  In  the  iirst  place  it  is  clearly  a  real  private  un- 
dertaking, instigated  by  that  collector's  zeal  to  which  we  owe 
so  many  valuable  notes  from  the  hand  of  Spalatin.  It  takes 
a  peep  at  Melanchthon's  work  at  a  time  when  the  latter  him- 
self did  not  consider  it  finished  or  at  all  right  for  inspection 
by  a  third  party.  And  this  is  what  makes  it  especially  valu- 
able. Besides,  as  was  mentioned  before,  it  arose  gradually 
and  Articles  XXI  and  XX  were  clearly  not  inserted  until 
later.  And  not  only  that.  A  new  investigation  of  the  manu- 
script "  has  convinced  me  that  the  rest  was  not  written  con- 
secutively either.  Right  in  the  second  layer  (fol.  46)  begins 
the  second  part:  "  Of  the  Articles  in  Dispute,"  and  over  this, 
as  over  the  title  of  "  Articles  of  Faith  and  Doctrine,"  Spal- 
atin made  a  cross,  just  as  he  was  accustomed  to  do  over  the 
beginning  of  most  of  the  documents  and  letters  coming  froui 
him.  From  this  I  infer  that  he  Avrote  the  two  parts  which 
were  not  combined  unlil  later,  apart  from  each  other,  ac- 
cording as  they  were  accessible  to  him. 

If  my  remarks  aljove  concerning  the  federation  of  the 
Evangelical  estates  are  correct,  then  e.  g.  the  Article  on  the 
Mass,  which  probably  also  in  the  German  text  originally  con- 
tained the  severe  condemnation  of  the  Zwingliaus,  later  omit- 
ted [  ^'Id.  Art.  X\'r,  p.  :^<»4],  can  only  have  originated  when 
the  negotiations  with  the  Landgrave  were  already  in  prog- 
ress, but  not  yet  ended,  for  Spalatin  does  not  contain  said 
passage,  but  an  indirect  and  much  more  severe  reservation 
against  their  doctrine  than  the  final  version."'  ^^'hy  Spal- 
atin suddenly  broke  off  his  copy  in  the  Article  on  "Vows" 
and  unfortunately  did  not  preserve  for  us  the  article  so 
important  to  the  history  of  the  Confession,  on  the  Authority 
of  tlie  Bishops  we  do  not  know.  I  should  like  to  state  my 
surmise  that   he   stoi)ped   when   he  learned  that  the   whole 


'■'  I    examined    it    tlicrc    Sept.    27ih.    1905. 
'^  See  note  -6,  p.   235. 


FfUST   DRAFT    OF    AUGUSTANA.  2\7 

docunieiit  had  in  the  meantime  received  an  essentially  dif- 
ferent form  which  made  his  copy  superfluous. 

But  Spalatin's  text  also  permits  of  a  thing  which  is 
closely  connected  with  the  origin  of  the  CJonfession,  namely 
important  observations  for  the  determination  of  the  question 
as  to  the  languages  in  which  the  individual  articles  were 
first  written. 

In  the  first  place  we  must  emphasize  over  against  errors  " 
that  continue  to  be  repeated,  that  the  Latin  and  the  Ger- 
man text  arose  independently  beside  each  other,  and  that  b<jth 
possess  equal  authenticity.  In  detail  it  cannot  be  proven 
everywhere,  but  at  least  for  some  articles,  that  one  was 
written  first 'in  German,  the  other  in  Latin  and  that  a 
certain  dependence  can  be  observed  even  in  the  received 
text.  That  Article  XX  as  noted  repeatedly"  was  written 
first  in  German,  has  been  handed  down  direct,  and  that  the 
German  text  is  virtually  a  translation  from  the  Latin,  is  un- 
mistakable. Also  the  Article  on  the  "  Invocation  of  Saints,'' 
is,  as  shown  before,  in  the  German  version  preserved  in 
Spalatin,  only  a  translation  of  the  Latin.  At  the  same  time 
I  consider  it  possible  that  Spalatin's  text  is  only  a  trans- 
lation of  his  own  and  for  his  own  purposes,  of  the  Article 
so  far  extant  only  in  Latin  and  that  the  later  German  version 
must  be  regarded  as  an  independent  one  and  not  a  revision 
of  the  text  found  in  Spalatin.  Also  the  XXIII.  Article  on 
the  "  Marriage  of  Priests  "  was  written  first  in  Latin  as  in- 
dicated elsewhere  '*  and  as  can  also  be  seen  from  a  comparison 
with  Spalatin's  text.  Tlie  same  may  be  observed  in  Article 
XXVII  ^"  On  Monastic  Vows,"  since  its  German  text,  at 
least  in  the  final  version  seems  to  be  oulv  a  recaslinir  of  the 


'*  Thus  Tschackert  p.  7,  who  refers  to  several  passages  in  the  report 
of  the  Nuremberg  delegates  C.  R.  11.  80,  83,  105  ;  but  these  are  disproven 
hy  other  sources  and  the  critical  investigation,  that  the  Latin  text  of  the 
Augsb.   Conf.   was  prepared  first. 

•'  C.  R.  II,   106. 

"  B  r  i  e  g  e  r   observed   this.      Torg.   Art.   p.    300,    note   2. 


248         THE    LU  THE  RAX    C  0  X  F  E  S  S 1  0  N  S. 

original  Latin  text.''  AVe  Mould  liave  to  eoucliKle  therefore 
that  Melaiiclithou  first  wrote  tbe  detailed  elaboration  of  this 
ai-ticle,  of  which  ho  wrote  to  Luther  on  'Mny  22nd,  in  Latin, 
for  the  fragment  of  this  article  preserved  in  Spalatin  has  so 
many  points  of  resemblance  to  iS^a,  that  one  is  justified  in 
thinking  of  the  same  Latin  original  for  both. 

This  leads  to  a  further  question.  Did  Luther  see  the 
German  or  the  Latin  text  of  the  Apology,  as  far  as  it  was 
doue  up  to  May  10th,  or  both  ?  So  far  no  absolutely  i-e- 
liable  reply  can  be  gi\en  to  this  question.  It  has  indeed 
been  considered  proven  that  Luther  saw  the  Apology  in  both 
versions,  from  the  fact  that  the  ''  Protocoll "  of  the  Xurem- 
berg  delegates  for  ^lay  lOth  states  that  the  "Counsel  written 
in  German  and  Latin,  but  not  finally  determined  upon,  was 
sent  to  Dr.  Luther  to  look  over.""  But  this  so-called  proto- 
coll is  no  independent  source  contemporaneous  with  the  events 
recorded,  but  a  subsequent  narration  based  upon  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  Nuremberg  city  council. 

As  Melanchthon  rather  wrote  Latin  than  German,  and  as 
the  Latin  version  was  completed  relatively  sooner  than  the 
German,  as  can  be  inferred  from  various  indications,  it 
would  be  ([uite  natural  to  infer  that  Luther  saw  only  the 
Latin.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  consideration  that  it  was 
the  Elector  who  sent  liim  the  Apology  and  that  the  latter 
nmst  first  have  read  and  approved  it.  Hence,  until  proof  is 
brought  to  the  contrary  it  must  be  assumed  as  prohablc  that 
Luther  saw  both  versions  so  far  as  they  were  finished. 

But  what  teas  finished  till  then?  As  for  the  number  of 
articles  seen  by  him,  my  investigations  have  brought  out  only 


•"' To  incution  ouc  example.  Quod  ei  obligatio  votorum  nullas  liaberet  causas, 
ut  mutari  possit.  (Tschackert  p.  175.  G),  i.s  rendered  quite  awkwardly  in  Ger- 
man, "  wo  die  Pflich  der  Gelubde  kein  ander  ursach  hetle,  da.ss  sie  mocht  aufge- 
hoben  werden."  while  Baumgarten  renders  the  sense  much  better:  "  Sollten  den 
diese   Gelubd   nit   mogen    aufgelost   werden,"   etc. 

'"  Thus  J  .  T  .  M  U  1  1  e  r  in  his  Einleitung  of  his  edition  of  the  Symbolical 
Books.  4.  Aufl.  Giitersloh  1876,  p.  LVII  and  after  him  K  n  a  a  k  e  et  al.  Luthers 
Anteil  an   der  Augsb.   Konf.  Berlin  1863,  p.   75. 


FIRST   DRAFT   OF   AUGUSTANA.  249 

this  new  fact  that  beside  Art.  XX,  Art.  XXI  was  lacking." 
The  qnestion  as  to  the  contents  and  form  of  the  articles  seen 
by  him,  is  far  more  important.  Even  on  this  point  notliing 
absolutely  certain  can  be  stated;  but  we  are  justified  in 
stating  this  very  fact  as  a  result  of  our  investigations. 

The  comparison  of  Xa  with  A,  shows  conclusively  what 
great  changes  the  Articles  suffered  in  the  last  two  or  three 
weeks  before  the  presentation.  As  we  can  not  state  positively 
that  Luther  saw  even  the  version  in  Xa,  but  rather  all  things 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  text  sent  him  was  considerably 
altered  up  to  the  time  when  Xa  was  completed,  and  since  the 
correspondence  between  Augsburg  and  Koburg  does  not  offer 
the  slightest  indication  that  he  had  any  part  in  the  altera- 
tions made,  or  tliat  any  of  the  later  versions  was  sent  him, 
Luther's  direct  part  in  the  framing  of  the  Confession,  which 
was  defended  during  the  last  forty  or  fifty  years  more  from 
a  confessional  than  scientific  and  historical  interest,  is  rela- 
tively small.''  Luther  helped  to  frame  the  Torgau  Articles 
and  as  can  be  proven,  discussed  with  ^lelanchthon  before 
the  Diet "  all  other  points  that  might  come  up  and  offered 
no  objection  to  what  he  saw  in  the  days  of  ]May.  But  that 
is  all. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  also  indubitable  and  must  ever 
be  repeated,  that  nothing  un-Lutheran  in  doctrine,  or  even 
Melanchthonian,  as  has  been  asserted,  has  gotten  into  the 
Confession  by  means  of  the  many  changes  made  by  Melanch- 
thon  and  which  Luther  would  have  disliked  if  he  could  have 


"  As  is  known  from  a  letter  of  Luther's  dated  July  21st  (  D  e  W  e  1 1  e  IV. 
110  ;  E  n  d  e  r  s  VIII,  133)  he  missed  an  article  de  sanctorum  cultu,  although  it 
was  in  the  completed  Augustana.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  he 
missed  it  in  the  original  draft  and  had  not  noticed  the  short  article  in  the 
finished  copy. 

'"  I  thinit  of  the  works  ofL.  J.  Rtickert,  Luthers  Verhaltnis  zum  Augsb. 
Bek.  Jena  1854.  C  a  I  i  n  i  c  h  ,  Luther  und  d.  Aug.  Konf.  Leipzig  1861.  J  .  K  . 
F.   Knaake,  Luthers  Antetl  an  d.   Augsb.   Konf.    Berlin.   1863,   etc. 

"  Cf.  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  June  27th  {  C  .  R  .  II  ,  146  )  :  Res  sunt  antea 
deliberatfe  ut  scis,  sed  semper  aliter  in  acie  se  dant  quam  antea  sunt  de- 
liberatae.  To  Camerarius,  Aug.  27th  (C  .  R  .  II,  334)  :  Nihil  adhuc  conces- 
simus  adver-i^ariis  pra>ter  ea.  qusp  Lutherus  censuit  esse  reddenda.  re  bene  ac 
diligenter  deliberata  ante  conventum. 


250         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

seen  them  in  detail,  merely  because  such  changes  were  always 
unpleasant  to  him  and  they  frequently  veiled  the  antithesis 
and  he  would  have  expressed  many  things  more  incisively. 
We  know  what  great  praise  the  Eeformer  bestowed  upon  the 
work  when  done  and  how  he  rejoiced  to  have  lived  to  the 
hour  "  of  this  beautiful  confession  of  Christ  before  such 
an  assembly  "  '*  and  saw  Ps.  119,  46  fulfilled  in  it.  "  I  will 
speak  of  thy  testimonies  also  before  kings  and  will  not  be 
ashamed  " — that  word  which  the  first  copies  prepared  in 
Augsburg  and  after  that  all  printed  editions  of  the  Confes- 
sion bore  as  a  motto. 


'*  To  Konrad  Cordatus,  July  6th  :  "  Mihi  vehenienter  placet,  vixisse  in  banc 
boram,  quia  Christus  per  suos  tantos  confessores  in  tanto  consessu  publice  est 
prtedicatus  confessione  plane  pulcherrima."  D  e  W  e  1 1  e  IV,  71 ;  E  n  d  e  r  s 
VIII.  83. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

THE  OLDEST  REDACTION'  OF  THE  AUGSBURG 
CONFESSIOX. 

Preface    of    Melanchthon — The    Eighteen   Articles   of    Faith — The    Articles   in 
Dispute. 

SIXC'E  there  has  been  much  and  all  kinds  of  talk  about 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  because  his  grace  has  permitted 
and  suffered  the  change  of  some  few  abuses  in  the  order  of 
the  Church,  his  Elec.  Gr.  has  placed  his  highest  hope  and 
trust  next  to  God  in  the  clemency  and  goodness  of  Y. 
Imp.  Maj.,  which  is  as  famous  and  glorious  with  every  one 
as  the  powerful  conquest  of  your  enemies.  And  although 
in  former  ages  no  emperor  achieved  as  much  against  his 
enemies,  there  is  nothing  more  glorious  and  laudable  than 
that  Y.  Maj.  has  done  in  this  nothing  else  than  seek  the  peace 
of  all  Europe,  Besides,  no  pride,  insolence  or  cruelty  has 
been  noticeable  in  this  conduct.  Also  that  Y.  ^laj.  in  the 
odious  actions^  which  arose  from  a  difference  in  common 
religion  and  faith,  has  shown  your  clemency  so  manifestly, 
that  you  have  been  willing  to  consent  to  graciously  hear  such 
dissension.  Hence  no  cruelty  may  be  ascribed  to  Y.  Imp. 
Maj.,  since  you  have  so  graciously  ])ermitted  us  to  come  to 
such  a  hearing  of  the  case,  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  some. 

Hence  it  is  the  submissive  request  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
that  Y.  Imp.  Maj.  would,  in  the  first  place,  not  suffer  your- 


*  Kolde,  in  printing  the  manuscript,  indicates  in  a  series  of  footnotes  the 
textual  readings  of  many  words  in  this  document  as  they  were  originally 
written,  but  afterward  stricken  out  and  supplanted  by  the  readings  of  the 
final  text.  The  MS.  contains  scarcely  any  punctuation. —  Vid.  Kolde,  Die 
alteste  Redaktion,  p.   3,  note  1,   and  p.   4,  note   1. 

251 


2o3         THE   LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

self  to  be  moved  to  any  disfavor  or  suspicion  against  him, 
and  secondly,  to  hear  and  consider  the  case  in  such  a  way 
that  thereby  the  glory  of  God  may  be  furthered  and  common 
peace  be  preserved  and  maintained,  which  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  desires,  not  only  in  view  of  his  age;  but  also  on  ac- 
count of  the  danger  which  every  one  may  expect  in  it.  May 
God  help  Y.  Imp.  Maj.  to  further  the  unity  of  Christendom 
with  the  same  grace  as  has  been  done  in  other  matters,  since 
Y.  ]\raj.  could  perform  nothing  more  well-pleasing  to  God, 
nor  more  glorious  or  honorable  to  yourself  forever,  than  to 
use  your  power  and  might  for  the  inquiry  into  this  case  and 
the  unification  of  Christendom. 

Therefore,  Y.  Maj.  should  also  endeavor  to  follow  the 
example  of  the  most  famous  emperors,  Theodosius,  Charle- 
magne and  Henry  the  Second,  who  rightly  considered  it 
to  be  a  duty  of  their  office  to  weigh  the  dissensions  of  faith 
and  to  bring  about  the  preaching  of  pure  doctrine  in  Chris- 
tendom, as  the  Holy  Ghost  specially  admonishes  princes  to 
defend  the  faith,  when  he  says  in  the  second  Psalm,  "Now, 
therefore,  be  wise,  oh  ye  kings;  be  instructed,  ye  judges  of 
the  earth,"  and  elsewhere:  "The  princes  of  the  peoples  gather 
themselves  together  unto  the  God  of  Abraham."  \Yhen  the 
princes  of  the  land  gather  unto  God,  God  is  praised  gloriously. 
With  such  words  the  prophet  would  indicate  that  God's 
honor  is  furthered  when  the  people  are  induced  by  the  piety 
of  the  princes,  and  the  princes  maintain  God-fearing  preach- 
ers. Therefore,  He  also  calls  the  princes  the  protectors  of 
the  land,  since  they  are  to  protect  and  defend  the  righteous 
and  the  God-fearing  with  their  power. 

Since  Y.  Imp.  Maj.  is  endowed  with  no  fewer  virtues  and 
fear  of  God  than  above-mentioned  Theodosius,  Charlemagne 
and  Henry,  yea,  far  transcends  several  of  them  in  power  and 
glory,  it  would  not  ill  become  Y.  ISIaj.  to  examine  into  the 
affairs  of  Christendom  and  bring  about  a  union.  The  Apos- 
tles have  prophesied  that  Christendom  in  these  lasit  times 
would   have   much   adversity,   wherefore   it   would  be   quite 


OLDEST   AUGSBUEG    CONFESSION.        253 

necessary  to  mark  the  present  evils  in  snch  a  manner  that 
things  may  not  become  worse  and  more  dangerous. 

But,  later  on,  we  will  indicate  what  the  doctrine  is  that 
is  taught  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony.  At  present  we  will 
briefly  show  of  what  mind  the  Elector  of  Saxony  is  in  this 
matter,  so  that  it  might  not  be  thought  that  he  would  further 
and  abet  this  new  doctrine  out  of  evil  purpose. 

The  honorable  Electors  of  Saxony,  Duke  Frederick  and 
Duke  Hans,  brothers,  have  always  been  of  such  an  honorable 
and  brave  nature  that  they  have  never  been  known  or  sus- 
pected of  any  evil.  It  is  also  manifest  how  kind  and  gra- 
cious they  have  always  been  toward  everyone,  no  matter  of 
what  estate ;  moreover  how  much  they  have  always  inclined 
to  the  Christian  religion  and  faith,  is  attested  publicly,  not 
only  by  their  whole  life,  but  also  the  institutions  and  churches 
which  they  have  in  part,  at  their  own  expense,  built  from  the 
foundation,  and  in  part  adorned  and  endowed.  Thus  they 
have  also  shown  their  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  Roman 
Emperors  in  such  a  manner  as  became  honorable  electors. 
In  all  affairs  of  the  empire  they  have  never  fallen  short  in 
furnishing  money  or  sending  stately  well-armed  auxiliaries. 
With  foreign  nations  or  enemies  of  the  empire  they  have 
never  had  any  understanding  or  treaty.  For  the  peace  and 
unity  of  a  common  Germany  they  have  been  so  inclined  that 
they  neither  ever  gave  any  one  occasion  for  disturbance ;  but, 
though  they  were  highly  tempted,  they  have  shown  patience 
for  the  sake  of  common  peace,  so  that  the  disturbance  did  not 
become  greater.  They  have  also  more  than  once,  when 
others  were  already  arrayed  in  arms,  by  their  diligence  and 
care  brought  them  to  peace  and  quiet. 

And  though  such  things  as  told  above  are  more  than  sufti- 
cient,  more  and  more  praiseworthy  things  may  yet  be  shown 
from  which  the  faith  and  good-will  of  above-mentioned  Elect- 
ors of  Saxony  may  be  seen  to  greater  evidence. 

Who  would  imagine  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  without 

notable  and  honorable  reason,  would  imperil  his  honor,  chil- 
20 


254        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

dren  and  grandchildren  to  sncli  an  extent  ?  Or  what  advan- 
tage might  accrne  to  him  from  this  miserable  discord  and  dis- 
sension, that  conld  be  compared  with  this  danger  which  he 
undergoes  and  sees  before  his  eyes  daily  ?  From  this  it  may 
well  be  concluded  that  if  his  conscience  had  not  driven  him, 
he  would  not  have  undertaken  to  represent  these  matters,  for 
it  was  not  hidden  from  him  what  a  burden  he  would  thus 
load  upon  himself,  although  the  matter  did  not  originate  with 
the  Elector,  but  with  others. 

In  the  first  place,  many  pious  and  learned  people  took 
pleasure  in  this  doctrine,  since  all  upright  men  were  desirous 
of  a  pure  doctrine,  and  bore  it  grievously  that  the  Christian 
doctrine   was   oppressed    and   darkened   with   the   teachings 
of  men  and  with  useless  talk.     Every  one  complained  of  the 
abuses    that    increased    daily;    all    teaching   in   the    schools 
was  corrupted ;  some  showed  and  praised  their  philosophy ; 
some  exalted  human  teachings.     But  the  things  that  were 
given  us  through  Christ,  of  repentance,  of  forgiveness  of  sins 
that  is  given  us  not  for  the  sake  of  our  merit,  but  through 
faith  in  Christ, — of  all  this  no  one  could  speak,  although 
among  Christians,  above  all  things,  the  righteousness  ought 
to  be  preached  that  comes  from  faith,  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
from  faith,  etc.     Every  day  new  forms  of  worship  were  in- 
vented in  the  Church  that  brought  revenue,  new  ways  of  sell- 
ing the  mass,  new  saints,  new  ceremonies,  indulgences  with- 
out number,  new  monkery,  and  the  consciences  of  the  simple 
were  daily  burdened  with  new  commandments. 

But  there  was  no  one  who  informed  or  comforted  the 
consciences  with  the  gospel.  This  was  the  complaint,  not 
only  of  the  common  man,  but  also  of  the  bishops,  though 
in  secret,  for  nobody  could  speak  against  these  things 
publicly,  since  the  monks  ruled  so  powerfully  in  Christen- 
dom, even  over  the  bjshops.  But  it  happened  that  the  indul- 
gence and  letters  of  remission  were  preached  in  Saxon  lands 
and  exalted  undul3\  This  Mariinus  Luther  contradicted  by 
means  of  several  smaller  treatises,  scholastically  and  not  be- 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        255 

fore  the  people,  and  also  without  abusing  or  maligning  the 
Pope.  But  his  adversaries  quickly  kindled  a  great  contro- 
versy and  published  many  malicious  books  in  both  languages, 
and  soon,  before  the  case  was  heard,  brought  up  the  ban  and 
condemnation  of  the  doctrine.  Through  such  unjust  action 
its  respect  was  somewhat  dimmed,  and  a  change  took  place 
in  many  locations. 

Nevertheless,  Luther  was  importuned  to  answer,  and  many 
pious  and  learned  people  took  pleasure  in  his  answer,  not 
because  he  rejected  the  indulgence,  but  on  account  of  the 
salutary  and  comforting  doctrine  of  repentance  and  the 
righteousness  that  follows  from  faith.  Thus  this  doctrine  was 
adopted  by  many  pious  people,  so  that  it  would  have  been 
difficult  for  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  proceed  in  any  wise 
against  the  originator  of  this  doctrine  on  account  of  so  many 
brave  and  learned  people  that  clung  to  it,  and  on  account  of 
,his  own  conscience.  This  was  especially  the  case,  since  those 
whose  duty  it  was  did  not  wish  to  undertake  the  matter  and 
the  change  of  religion  was  already  at  hand,  and  would  only 
have  become  greater  and  worse,  if  the  learned  preachers  had 
been  put  away.  For  before  Luther  had  written  anything,  all 
sorts  of  erroneous  and  scandalous  doctrine  had  alreacly  arisen, 
which  would  have  caused  mnch  grievous  change  and  op- 
pression in  Christendom  if  Luther  had  not  prevented  it. 

And  the  adversaries,  if  they  have  any  sense  at  all,  cannot 
deny  that  much  that  is  salutary  and  useful  to  the  salvation 
of  the  soul  is  contained  in  this  doctrine,  which  they  them- 
selves accept  and  allow.  For  it  has  brought  this  about  that 
the  preachers  now  teach  much  more  thoughtfully  of  the 
power  of  the  keys,  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  of  work-righteous- 
ness, of  the  use  of  the  sacraments,  of  evangelical  counsels, 
of  worldly  statutes,  of  the  merit  of  monastic  life  and  such 
like  human  doctrine,  of  the  worship  of  saints,  after  such 
things  have  been  brought  to  light  by  us.  They  also  dispute 
more  sharply  with  us,  and  even  endeavor  to  slay  us  with  our 
own  sword. 


256         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

And,  as  can  be  proven,  more  than  one  heresy  has  thereby 
been  allaved,  which  had  arisen  with  new  and  nnchristian 
writings  against  the  holy  sacraments.  The  Anabaptists  had 
spread  a  seductive  and  seditions  doctrine  against  the  posses- 
sion of  temporal  property,  against  the  conrts,  against  the 
power  of  the  magistrates,  against  all  civil  order,  against 
preaching,  against  the  holy  sacrament,  all  of  which  would 
have  been  spread  much  further  had  not  the  hearts  of  men 
been  warned  and  strengthened  by  this  teaching,  whereby 
authority  and  civil  order  are  well  maintained,  and  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  is  so  bravely  defended  against  the  hypocrisy 
of  the  Anabaptists  and  their  imagined  angelic  holiness. 
Hence  it  is  not  denied  by  any  upright,  honest  man,  that  in 
these  schisms  much  has  been  brought  to  light  that  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  know.  It  is  also  entirely  unfounded  to 
say  that  the  Anabaptists  or  their  ilk  have  originated  from 
Luther's  doctrine,  for  such  things  have  occurred  before 
Luther,  and  most  of  all  in  such  places  where  there  was  a  lack 
of  skilful  pastors  who  ought  to  have  strengthened  and 
warned  the  consciences  of  men  against  false  doctrine. 

This  cause  was  made  specially  odious  on  account  of  the  gen- 
eral rumor  spread  by  our  adversaries  that  we  had  done  away 
with  all  ceremonies,  and  were  destroying  all  spiritual  order 
and  rule.  With  how  much  reason  such  things  are  attributed 
to  us  the  facts  will  show.  For  this  doctrine  is  not  directed 
to  the  end  that  ceremonies  be  done  away  with  but  rather 
that  they  should  be  preserved  with  true  fear  of  God,  and 
we  can  say  with  truth,  that  in  all  Germany  the  mass  is  not 
celebrated  with  greater  fear  of  God  and  greater  participation 
of  the  people  than  with  us.  It  is  also  celebrated  according 
to  common  custom,  except  that  along  with  the  Latin  singing 
we  also  use  German,  so  that  the  people  may  have  something 
which  they  can  understand  and  learn. 

The  sacrament  is  received  by  the  people  with  greater  rev- 
erence and  oftener  than  before,  and  every  one  is  previously 
examined  and  instructed,  a  thing  which  formerly  could  not 


OLDEST   AUG8BUBG    CONFESSION.         2r>7 

easily  be  done,  as  at  such  a  time  a  whole  crowd  was  accus- 
tomed to  go  together. 

Confession  is  likewise  still  observed,  and  the  poAver  of 
the  keys  is  ofttimes  praised  in  preaching  and  the  people  ad- 
monished what  a  great  power  there  is  in  absolution. 

The  sermons  are  pure  and  sensible,  which  beyond  doubt 
is  the  most  acceptable  sacrifice  unto  God. 

Psalms  and  the  litany  are  also  chanted  at  the  proper 
time,  not  for  lucre  or  money,  but  by  the  pupils  and  the 
congregation  of  people.  Thereby  the  unskilled  are  practiced 
and  earnestly  urged  through  the  Word  of  God  to  pray.  For 
this  reason  the  ceremonies  must  be  observed  in  the  churches. 

The  holy  days  are  still  observed,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  more  recent  ones,  which  have  long  been  displeasing  to 
well-informed  men,  for  which  reason  the  bishops  and  princes 
have  often  counselled  how  they  might  abolish  some. 

Besides  all  this  a  very  useful  ceremony  is  also  observed, 
which  formerly  was  used  with  great  diligence  in  Christen- 
dom, but  afterward  fell  into  desuetude  owing  to  negligence 
of  the  pastors  and  the  people,  namely,  the  catechism  and 
and  instruction  of  the  young.  For  this  the  boys  and  girls 
are  asked  to  come  together  to  the  churches,  where  one  of  the 
preachers  delivers  to  them  the  beginning  and  foundation  of 
Christian  doctrine,  as  the  Creed,  the  Ten  Commandments, 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  several  portions  of  the  Gospel  on  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  of  repentance,  of  faith  in  Christ,  of  good 
works,  of  the  cross,  of  Baptism  and  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar.  Afterward  every  one  is  examined  as  to  what  it  has 
retained.  Thus  the  children  advance  exceedingly  in  Christ- 
ian knowledge,  which  formerly  was  lacking  even  to  the  older 
ones  on  account  of  much  useless  disputation  and  talk. 

The  schools  are  maintained  with  great  diligence  and  at 
great  expense  to  the  authorities. 

This  is  the  order  of  the  churches  in  the  Electorate  of 
Saxony,  mostly  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom  and  usage 
of  the  Roman  Church,  according  to  the  instruction  of  holy 


258         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

teachers,  and  we  desire  nothing  more  than  that  snch  should 
also  be  acceptable  to  the  bishops ;  but  they  are  a  little  too 
hard  on  us,  because  they  persecute  us  on  account  of  the  mar- 
riage of  priests  and  such  like  things. 

But  if  they  were  inclined  toward  us  with  somewhat  more 
grace,  no  one  would  need  to  complain  that  the  order  of  the 
Church  is  being  broken.  For  the  matter  of  which  many 
accuse  us,  as  if  this  doctrine  had  the  sole  tendency  to  break  up 
the  power  of  the  clergy,  is  altogether  without  foundation. 
For  they  would  lose  nothing  of  their  poyver  and  magnifi- 
cence if  they  would  only  let  up  on  some  new  and  improper 
abuses.  They  would  also  not  need  entertain  any  fear  for 
their  possessions,  although  many  others  more  than  once 
before  us  have  endeavored,  under  the  semblance  of  a  refor- 
mation, to  take  away  the  possessions  of  the  clergy. 

The  Bohemians  at  the  Council  of  Basel,  among  other 
things,  have  also  postulated  that  the  servants  of  the  Church 
should  have  no  private  property;  but  our  teaching  is  entirely 
different,  namely,  that  as  it  is  permissible  to  every  Christian 
to  use  other  external  things,  just  so  every  Christian,  whether 
he  be  a  bishop  or  a  pastor,  may  legally  have  and  possess  his 
own  property.  For  even  if  bishops  should  become  poor  and 
lose  their  properties,  that  would  not  help  other  Christians. 
But  it  would  help  them,  if  the  bishops  would  provide  for  the 
preaching  of  the  pure  and  unadulterated  Word.  These 
seditious  propositions  to  take  from  the  clergy  what  belongs 
to  it  have  nothing  to  do  with  our  doctrine,  which  demands 
only  that  Christendom  be  instructed  in  the  pure  teaching, 
and  the  consciences  be  unburdened  from  unchristian  com- 
mandments, for  the  Christian  Church  is  born  and  maintained 
solely  from  the  Word  as  it  is  written:  He  has  begotten  us 
through  the  Word  of  truth.  Thus  we  teach  that  all  civil 
laws  and  ordinances  under  spiritual  and  secular  power  are  to 
be  observed  as  an  order  of  Cod  for  tlie  sake  of  peace  and 
unity.  Xever  has  a  reformation  been  undertaken  so  entirely 
without  violence  as  this  one,  as  it  is  evident  that  through 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        259 

our  adherents  others  have  been  brought  to  peace  who  were 
already  arrayed  in  arms. 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  shown  that  this  controversy 
arose  not  without  cause,  and  that  it  was  not  tolerated  by  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  from  a  malicious  purpose.  'Now  we  speak 
of  the  doctrine,  and  first  of  all  enumerate  the  principal  arti- 
cles of  faith  from  which  Y.  Imp.  Maj.  may  learn  that  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  does  not  tolerate  any  unchristian  teaching 
in  his  territory,  but  has  given  all  diligence  to  the  universal 
Christian  faith. 


Xtbe  Hxticles  ot  jfaitb. 

Article  I. 

In  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  it  is  taught  and  preached 
with  common  consent  that  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Ni- 
caea  concerning  the  Unity  of  the  Divine  Essence  and  Three 
Persons  is  to  be  held  and  believed  without  doubting;  that 
is  to  say,  that  there  is  one  Divine  Essence,  w'hich  is  called 
and  is  God ;  one,  without  body,  without  parts,  of  inexpressi- 
ble might,  wisdom  and  goodness,  the  Preserver  of  all  things 
visible  and  invisible ;  and  yet  that  there  are  three  Persons 
of  one  essence,  might  and  eternity,  namely,  the  Father,  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  the  term  "person"  is  un- 
derstood here  as  the  Fathers  have  used  it,  to  signify  not  a 
part  or  quality  in  another,  but  that  which  subsists  of  itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  heresies  are  condemned  that  have 
sprung  up  against  this  article,  as  the  Manichaeans,  Valentin- 
ians,  etc. 

Article  II. 

Also  it  is  taught  that,  since  the  Fall  of  Adam  all  men  ac- 
cording to  nature  are  born  in  sin,  that  is,  without  fear  of  and 
trust  in  God,  full  of  concupiscence,  etc.,  and  that  this  disease 


260         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

of  origin  is  truly  sin,  which  condemns  and  brings  into 
eternal  death  all  those  who  are  not  born  again  through 
baptism. 

Article  III. 

Thirdly,  it  is  taught  that  the  Son  of  God  did  take  man's 
nature  in  the  womb  of  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary,  so  that  the 
Two  ^Natures,  the  divine  and  the  human,  inseparably  con- 
joined in  the  one  Person  are  the  one  Christ,  true  God  and 
true  man,  truly  born,  suffered,  crucified,  dead  and  buried  as 
a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  sin,  but  also  for  the  actual 
sin  of  all  men.  He  also  descended  into  Hell,  and  truly  rose 
again  on  the  third  day ;  afterward  He  ascended  into  Heaven, 
that  He  might  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and 
forever  reign,  justify,  sanctify,  quicken  and  defend  all  who 
believe  in  Him  by  sending  the  Holy  Ghost  into  their  hearts. 
He  shall  openly  come  again,  and  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead,  as  we  confess  in  the  Creed. 

Article  IV. 

Fourthly,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  by  means  of  the 
Word  and  the  Sacraments,  as  Paul  saith,  ''Faith  cometh  by 
hearing."  Here  the  Anabaptists  and  their  ilk  are  rejected, 
who  despise  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  and  think  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  obtained  through  human  preparation. 

Article  V. 

Fifthly,  that  we  cannot  obtain  remission  of  sins  and  justi- 
fication before  God  by  any  work  or  satisfaction  of  ours; 
but  we  receive  it  free,  gratis  and  unbought,  if  we  believe 
that  our  sin  is  forgiven  us  through  Christ  and  we  are  received 
through  grace.  For  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  this  end, 
that  all  who  believe  in  Him  should  not  perish.  John  3. 
Through  such  faith  in  the  Gospel  or  promise  of  grace  we 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        2G1 

receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  Paul  says,  Gal.  3,  that  we  have 
received  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith. 


Article  VI. 

Sixthly,  that  this  faith  brings  forth  good  works,  or  that 
it  is  necessary  to  do  good  works  because  of  God's  will,  but 
that  we  do  not  thereby  merit  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justifi- 
cation before  God,  but  these  are  freely  given  us  if  we  be- 
lieve that  the  Father  has  graciously  received  us  for  Christ's 
sake,  and  that  we  arc  justified,  as  the  early  teachers  speak, 
e,  g.,  Ambrosius,  the  epistle  to  the  Corinthians:  "It  is  or- 
dained of  God  that  he  who  believes  in  Christ  is  saved,  freely 
receiving  remission  of  sins,  without  works,  by  faith  alone." 

Article  VII. 

Seventhly,  that  One  Holy  Church  is  to  continue  forever. 
The  Church  is  the  congregation  of  saints,  in  which  the 
Gospel  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  administered.  And 
to  the  unity  of  the  Church  it  is  enough  to  agree  concerning 
the  Gospel  and  the  sacraments.  But  it  is  not  necessary  that 
tlie  ceremonies  or  other  human  observances  should  be  every- 
where alike,  as  Christ  says,  "The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh 
not  with  observation."  Although  the  Church  is,  properly 
speaking,  a  congregation  of  saints  and  true  believers,  never- 
theless, since  in  this  life  many  hypocrites  and  evil  persons 
are  mingled  therewith,  we  may  well  and  w^ithout  danger  use 
the  sacraments  that  are  administered  by  evil  men,  according 
to  the  saying  of  Christ :  "The  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit 
in  Moses'  seat."  Both  the  Sacraments  and  Word  are^  effec- 
tual by  reason  of  the  institution  and  commandment  of  Christ, 
notwithstanding  they  be  administered  by  evil  men. 

In  this  connection  they  condemn  the  Donatists  and  others 
who  taught  that  the  ministry  of  evil  men  should  not  be  used 
in  the  Church,  for  what  they  do  is  of  none  effect. 


262         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
Akticle  VIII. 

Eighthly,  that  children  are  to  be  baptized,  and  that  through 
Baptism  they  are  offered  to  God  and  are  received  into  His 
grace. 

Here  again  they  reject  the  Anabaptists,  who  say  that  bap- 
tism is  of  no  use  to  children,  and  that  little  children  are  saved 
without  baptism. 

Abticle  IX. 

Ninthly,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  truly 
present  and  distributed  in  the  Supper,  and  they  reject  those 
who  teach  otherwise. 

Article  X. 

Tenthly,  that  private  absolution  ought  to  be  retained  in 
the  Church,  although  in  confession  it  is  not  necessary  to  enu- 
merate all  sins,  for  that  is  impossible. 

Article  XI. 

Eleventh,  that  those  who  have  sinned  after  baptism  may  at 
any  time  be  renewed  by  repentance,  and  that  the  Church 
ought  to  impart  absolution  to  such.  But  Repentance  con- 
sists of  two  parts:  firstly,  contrition  or  terror  of  the  con- 
science through  the  knowledge  of  sin ;  the  other  is  faith,  born 
of  the  Gospel  or  of  absolution,  which  believes  that  for 
Christ's  sake  sins  are  forgiven,  and  thus  comforts  and 
strengthens  the  conscience.  Then  good  works  are  bound  to 
follow  as  fruits  of  repentance. 

Here  are  rejected  the  l^ovatians,  who  would  not  permit 
any  one  who  had  sinned  after  baptism  to  come  to  repentance 
and  absolution.  They  are  also  rejected  who  teach  that  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  obtained  through  our  satisfaction,  and  not 
through  Christ.  Also  the  Anabaptists,  who  teach  that  one 
who  has  once  been  justified  cannot  again  fall. 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        203 
Aeticle  XIL 

Twelfthlj,  that  the  sacraments  are  not  only  ordained  as 
marks  among  men,  bnt  rather  to  a  testimony  of  the  divine 
will  toward  ns,  instituted  to  strengthen  faith  in  those  who 
use  them.  Wherefore  we  must  so  use  the  sacraments  as  to 
believe  the  promises  tliat  are  added  through  the  sacraments. 

Article  XIII. 

Thirteenth,  that  all  rites  that  are  instituted  by  men  among 
Christians  to  obtain  grace  and  justification  are  unchristian, 
•and  offend  the  honor  and  merit  of  Christ ;  wherefore  monastic 
vows,  difference  of  days  and  meats  and  similar  traditions  of 
men  are  useless  unto  justification.  But  those  usages  that  are 
profitable  that  all  things  in  the  church  may  be  done  decently 
and  in  order  we  teach  ought  to  be  observed  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  unity,  such  as  ordering  of  holidays,  chanting  and 
the  like ;  but  they  must  not  be  made  a  matter  of  necessity  or 
of  merit. 

Article  XIV. 
[jS^ot  extant.] 

Article  XV. 

Fifteenth,  of  civil  matters,  that  lawful  civil  ordinances  are 
a  good  work  of  God,  that  a  Christian  may  bear  a  civil  office, 
sit  as  judge,  determine  matters  by  the  existing  imperial  laws, 
award  just  punishment,  engage  in  just  wars,  buy  and  make 
other  contracts,  hold  property,  make  oath  when  required  by 
the  magistrates,  marry,  etc. 

Here  again  they  reject  the  Anabaptists  who  forbid  all  these 
things  to  Christians,  also  those  who  do  not  place  the  perfection 
of  the  Gospel  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  faith,  but  in  forsaking 
civil  offices ;  for  the  Gospel  teaches  an  eternal  righteousness 
of  the  heart.     Meanwhile  it  does  not  destroy  external  order 


2CA         THE   LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  rule,  but  will  have  the  same  used  as  ordinances  of  God  for 
the  exercise  of  charity.  Therefore  a  Christian  is  bound  to 
obey  the  magistrates  and  their  laws,  save  when  they  com- 
mand something  unchristian  and  against  God,  for  then  he 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men. 

Article  XVI. 

Sixteenth,  that  all  men  who  have  died  shall  again  be  awak- 
ened with  the  same  body  of  theirs  wherein  they  died,  for  tlie 
judgment  of  Christ,  among  whom  the  elect  shall  really  be 
saved;  but  the  damned  together  with  the  devils  shall  never* 
in  all  eternity  be  saved  from  the  torment  of  hell. 

Here  are  rejected  the  followers  of  Origen  and  the  Anabap- 
tists, who  teach  that  in  the  end  also  the  damned  and  the  devils 
will  be  saved  from  torment,  also  those  who  according  to 
Jewish  opinion  say  that  the  promise  of  the  possession  of  the 
Promised  Land  must  be  understood  in  a  bodily  sense,  and 
that  before  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment  the  ungodly 
shall  everywhere  be  suppressed  by  the  saints,  and  these  shall 
obtain  the  civil  power. 

Article  XVII. 

Seventeenth,  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  we  teach  that  man's 
will  has  some  liberty  for  the  attainment  of  civil  righteousness 
and  for  the  choice  of  things  subject  to  reason.  Nevertheless 
it  has  no  power  without  the  Holy  Ghost  to  work  the  inner 
spiritual  righteousness  that  counts  before  God,  since  the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  tilings  of  the  Spirit  of  God; 
but  this  righteousness  is  wrought  in  the  heart  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  received  through  the  Word.  As  Augustine  says: 
"  We  grant  that  all  men  have  a  certain  freedom  of  will  ac- 
cording to  the  natural  reason,  whereby,  however,  they  are 
not  capable  either  to  begin  or  to  complete  aught  spiritual  or 
divine,  but  only  in  works  of  this  life,  whether  good  or  evil. 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.         2G5 

the  good  as  to  lal)or  in  the  fiekl,  eat,  drink,  clothe,  beget,  etc., 
the  evil,  as  to  worshij)  idols,  commit  murder,  adultery,  etc." 


Article  XVIII. 

Of  sin  we  teach  that  although  God  has  created  nature  and 
preserves  it,  yet  the  cause  of  sin  is  nothing  but  the  evil  will 
of  the  devil  and  ungodly  men,  which  will,  unaided  of  God, 
turns  itself  from  God,  as  the  prophet  Hosea  says  in  the  loth 
chapter:  '"O  Israel,  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself;  but  in  me 
is  thine  help." 

This  is  about  the  Sum  of  the  Doctrine  in  the  Electorate 
of  Saxony,  in  which  there  is  nothing  that  is  contrary  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  or  the  Church  Catholic  or  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  tried  and  accepted 
teachers.  Hence  we  are  unjustly  decried  as  heretics.  The 
whole  disagreement  is  on  certain  abuses  which  have  crept  in 
without  the  consent  of  Christendom.  And  even  in  these,  if 
there  were  some  difference,  there  should  be  proper  lenity  on 
the  part  of  bishops  to  bear  with  ns  by  reason  of  the  present 
confession  of  our  faith,  and  not  sever  us  from  the  Christian 
Church  nor  reject  us,  for  their  own  canons  are  not  so  severe 
as  to  demand  the  same  rites  and  ceremonies  everywhere,  nor 
has  it  ever  been  so. 


Here  follow  tbe  Hrticles  in  Dispute,  in  wbicb  are 

reviewed  tbe  Hbuses  wbicb  bare  \>zzx[. 

Corrected)  an5  Bbolisbe&» 

Inasmuch  as  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  there  is  no  dis- 
sent in  any  article  of  the  Faith  from  the  holy  Scriptures  nor 
the  Church  Catholic;  but  only  some  abuses  are  omitted  whicli 


2G6         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

without  any  reason  have  become  rooted  among  Christians,  we 
pray  that  your  Imperial  Majesty  would  graciously  hear  both 
what  has  been  changed  and  also  what  were  the  reasons  for 
such  changes,  since  it  may  not  be  said  of  us  with  any  truth 
that  we  abolish  all  ancient  usages  and  ceremonies ;  but  we 
desire  to  observe  them  as  much  as  possible.  But  the  common 
complaint  about  the  abuses  in  the  Church  is  not  a  new  one 
of  the  present  moment,  wherefore  it  has  been  necessary  to 
correct  a  few  as  follows: 

Of  Both  Kinds  in  the  Sacrament. 

To  the  laity  are  given  Both  Kinds  in  the  holy  Sacrament, 
because  Christ  has  thus  commanded,  Matt.  26 :  "Drink  ye 
all  of  it ;"  where  C -hrist  has  manifestly  commanded  concern- 
ing the  cup,  that  all  should  drink,  and  lest  any  man  should 
say  that  Christ  hereby  meant  only  the  priests,  we  refer  him 
to  the  tenth  chapter  of  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
from  which  it  appears  that  the  whole  congregation  did  use 
both  kinds,  when  lie  says,  ''We  are  all  partakers  of  one  bread 
and  of  one  cup."  This  usage  has  long  remained  in  the 
Church,  nor  is  it  known  when  or  by  whose  authority  it  was 
changed.  Cyprian  indicates  as  much  in  many  passages. 
Thus  it  was  previously  nowhere  forbidden.  Indeed  Pope 
Gelasius  commands  that  the  sacrament  be  not  divided.  Only 
custom,  not  so  ancient,  has  it  otherwise.  But  it  is  evident 
that  a  custom  introduced  against  the  commandment  of  God 
is  not  to  be  allowed.  Therefore  both  kinds  are  to  be  used, 
eince  Christ  Himself  commands  it,  and  the  canons  do  so 
also,  and  the  Church  has  observed  this  f(»r  a  long  time, 
from  which  it  follows  that  this  correction  has  been  made 
with  propriety. 

Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests. 

There  has  been  common  complaint  concerning  the  scanda- 
lous lives  of  priests  who  were  not  chaste.     For  this  reason 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.         26r 

also  Pope  Pius  the  Second  is  reported  to  have  said  repeatedly, 
that  there  were  certain  reasons  why  marriage  was  taken  away 
from  priests,  but  that  there  were  far  weightier  ones  why  it 
ought  to  be  given  back.  Since  therefore  our  priests  were 
desirous  to  avoid  these  open  scandals,  they  married  wives  and 
teach  that  it  is  lawful  for  them  to  do  so,  since  Paul  says: 
''To  avoid  fornication,  let  every  man  have  his  own  wife,"  etc. 
Also:  *'It  is  better  to  marry  than  to  burn."  Secondly, 
Christ  says:  ''All  men  cannot  receive  this  saying,"  when  He 
teaches  that  not  all  men  are  fit  to  lead  a  single  life,  for  God 
created  man  for  procreation.  Gen.  1,  nor  is  it  in  man's  power, 
without  a  singular  gift  and  work  of  God  to  alter  this  purpose. 
Therefore  those  who  are  not  fit  to  lead  a  single  life  ought 
to  contract  marriage.  For  no  man's  law,  no  vow  can  annul 
the  commandment  and  ordinance  of  God. 

In  the  early  ages  this  was  the  custom  in  the  Church  as 
Paul  testifies:  "A  bishop  shall  be  the  husband  of  one  wife." 
And  in  Germany,  four  hundred  years  ago  for  the  first  time, 
the  priests  were  violently  compelled  to  lead  a  single  life, 
who  indeed  offered  such  resistance  that  the  Archbishop  of 
Mayence,  when  about  to  publish  the  Pope's  decree  concerning 
this  matter,  was  almost  killed  by  them.  And  so  harsh  was 
the  dealing  in  the  matter  that  not  only  were  marriages  for- 
bidden for  the  time  to  come,  but  existing  marriages  also  were 
torn  asunder,  contrary  to  divine  and  human  law,  contrary  to 
their  own  canons  and  the  laws  of  many  Councils. 

In  this  connection  may  your  Imp.  Maj.,  in  order  to  preserve 
general  morality  and  honesty,  remember  that  as  the  world  is 
aging  man's  nature  is  gradually  growing  weaker,  and  there- 
fore it  is  quite  necessary  to  guard  that  no  more  scandal  and 
vice  steal  in.  For  God  has  ordained  marriage  to  be  a  help 
against  human  infirmity.  The  Canons  themselves  say  that 
rigor  ought  to  be  relaxed  according  to  the  weakness  of  men, 
which  is  devoutly  to  be  wished  were  done  also  in  this  matter, 
for  the  marriage  of  priests,  especially  of  pastors  and  preach- 
ers, is  not  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  Church.     But  although 


2G8         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

God  has  commanded  such  things  and  it  was  the  custom  from 
the  beginning,  and  celibacy  causes  many  scandals,  adulteries 
and  other  abominable  vices,  yet  it  is  evident  that  not  even 
wrong-doing  or  crime  is  punished  so  horribly  as  the  marriage 
of  priests.  Who  has  ever  seen  or  heard  that  anyone  should 
be  punished  on  account  of  marriage  which  God  has  com- 
manded to  honor,  and  which  in  all  well-ordered  common- 
wealths is  held  in  honor  even  among  the  heathen.  But  now 
the  priests  arc  tortured  and  put  to  death,  contrary  to  the 
Canons  and  for  no  other  cause.  Paul  calls  that  a  doctrine  of 
devils  which  forbids  marriage.  This  may  now  be  readily 
imderstood  when  such  a  prohibition  must  be  maintained 
with  killing  and  murder. 

But  as  no  law  of  man  can  annul  any  commandment  of  God, 
so  also  can  no  vow  abrogate  God's  commandment.  Accord- 
ingly also  Cyprian  advises  that  women  who  do  not  keep  the 
chastity  they  have  promised,  should  marry.  And  even  the 
Canons  show  some  leniency  toward  them  who  have  taken 
vows  before  the  proper  age. 

Of  the  Mass. 

We  are  falsely  accused  of  having  abolished  the  mass,  for 
it  is  celebrated  by  us  with  the  highest  reverence.  But  here 
again  it  has  been  a  public  complaint  that  they  have  been 
basely  profaned  and  a  regular  fair  has  been  made  of  them, 
that  priests  had  no  desire  for  it  and  yet  use  it  for  the  sake 
of  lucre.  When  therefore  such  abuse  among  ns  was  repri- 
manded by  the  preachers,  Private  Masses  were  discontinued, 
since  St.  Paul  severely  threatens  those  who  eat  and  drink  this 
bread  and  cup  nnworthily.  But  this  abuse  had  crept  in  so 
extensively  that  scarcely  any  Private  ^Masses  were  celebrated, 
except  for  lucre's  sake,  which  the  bishops  ought  to  have  cor- 
rected. 

Besides  this  it  was  also  abused  in  another  way,  as  if  it  could 
blot  out  another's  sin  and  bring  profit  to  the  dead  and  the 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.         269 

living,  wherefore  it  increased  and  multiplied  to  such  an  ex- 
tent. Our  preachers  have  also  reproved  this,  since  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  in  many  passages  that  we  are  justified  through 
faith  alone  and  not  through  works,  whether  they  be  masses 
or  other  works,  etc.  Christ  by  His  death  has  obtained  for  us 
the  remission  of  sins,  hence  we  must  not  look  for  it  in  the 
Mass.  Christ  also  did  not  command  it,  but  He  said  to  us, 
to  do  it  in  remembrance  of  Him,  that  is  to  believe  that  He 
will  keep  His  promise  made  to  us,  for  even  Jews  and  infidels 
remember  Him  in  other  ways.  Wherefore  the  Mass  is  of  use 
to  strengthen  faith  only  to  him  who  holds  it,  as  Ambrose  says: 
"Because  I  sin  daily,  I  must  daily  take  medicine."  Also 
Christ  says :  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  from  which 
it  follows  that  the  Mass  is  of  no  use  to  the  dead,  whose  faith 
and  memory  can  not  be  strengthened  thereby.  Likewise  the 
Scriptures  say  that  we  should  thereby  proclaim  the  death  of 
the  Lord.    What  shall  we  proclaim  to  the  dead  ? 

Therefore  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  a  single  mass  is 
celebrated  by  the  pastor,  very  much  according  to  the  ac- 
customed usage.  He  administers  the  Holy  Sacrament  to  those 
who  desire  it ;  but  tliey  must  first  be  proved  and  absolved,  and 
thus  it  was  formerly  also  held  in  the  Roman  Church,  as  we 
find  recorded. 

The  people  are  also  advised  with  the  greatest  diligence  and 
instructed  concerning  the  use  and  profit  of  the  sacrament, 
liow  faith  is  strengthened  thereby,  in  order  that  the  people 
may  learn  to  trust  in  God  and  to  expect  and  ask  of  Him  all 
that  is  good.    This  worship  pleases  God  best. 

Here  we  also  reject  the  unchristian  doctrine  which  denies 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  and  the 
people  are  admonished  to  receive  the  sacrament  frequently. 

Of  Confessioijt. 

Confession  in  our  churches  is  not  abolished ;  for  the  sacra- 
ment is  administered  to  no  one  except  he  have  been  previously 
21 


270         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

examined  and  absolved.  And  the  people  are  most  carefully 
taiiglit  concerning  the  assurance  of  absolution  about  which 
aforetime  not  much  was  known.  The  power  of  the  keys  is 
commended  and  we  show  what  great  consolation  it  brings  to 
anxious  consciences,  and  that  God  requires  of  us  that  we 
should  believe  such  absolution  as  a  voice  sounding  from 
Heaven,  from  which  faith  follows  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

Aforetime  much  was  said  about  our  satisfaction  alone,  of 
faith  and  the  merit  of  Christ  little  was  said.  Wherefore  on 
this  point  we  are  unjustly  accused.  For  this  even  our  ad- 
versaries must  concede  that  we  have  most  diligently  treated 
the  doctrine  concerning  repentance. 

But  of  Confession  we  teach  that  consciences  be  not  burd- 
ened with  enumeration  of  all  sins.  For  that  is  impossible,  as 
the  psalm  says,  "Who  can  understand  his  errors  ?"  Thus  the 
ancient  writers  have  held,  as  Chrysostomus :  "I  say  not  to 
thee  that  thou  shouldest  disclose  thyself  in  public;  nor  that 
thou  accuse  thyself  before  others ;  but  I  would  have  thee  obey 
the  voice  of  the  prophet  who  says,  ^Disclose  tliy  way  before 
God.'  Therefore  confess  thy  sins  before  God,  the  true  Judge, 
and  recount  thy  trespass  with  prayer,  not  with  the  tongue, 
but  with  the  memory  of  thy  conscience."  These  words  in- 
dicate that  the  enumeration  of  sins  is  not  necessary  although 
confession  is  not  to  be  abolished  on  account  of  the  great 
benefit  of  absolution. 

Of  the  Distinction  of  Meats. 

It  has  been  thought  that  making  Distinctions  of  Meats  and 
like  traditions  are  a  satisfaction  for  sins  and  merit  grace. 
Thus  many  have  taught  and  daily  thought  out  something  new. 
Such  error  we  did  not  wish  to  endure  longer,  since  it  is  quite 
contrary  to  the  merit  of  Christ  and  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
which  is  constantly  preached  in  the  Church  and  ought  to  be 
preached.  Wherefore  also  Paul  in  almost  all  his  epistles 
opposes  this  point,  in  order  that  men  may  see  that  righteous- 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        2T1 

iiess  comes  not  from  such  works  but  from  faith  in  Christ. 
Some  say,  although  without  reason,  that  we  oppose  this  point, 
only  because  we  would  lessen  spiritual  authority,  some  that 
we  are  bringing  heathen  customs  into  the  world,  but  we  do 
not  oppose  and  abolish  all  human  ordinances  in  common.  But 
we  had  to  make  plain  to  people  what  must  be  thought  of 
it.  Besides  we  are  not  the  first  who  have  taught  about  it  in 
this  manner.  Augustine  says  that  they  should  be  considered 
a  matter  of  liberty.  Gerson  forbids  binding  men's  consciences 
with  them  and  thus  has  given  comfort  to  many  pious  people ; 
for  no  one  ever  came  to  earth  who  has  observed  all  these  tra- 
ditions. Many  fell  into  despair  and  some  even  took  their  own 
lives  because  they  did  not  have  the  comfort  of  the  righteous- 
ness from  faith.  But  those  who  kept  some  of  these  traditions 
thought  to  acquire  forgiveness  thereby;  besides,  such  tra- 
ditions were  placed  far  above  the  commandments  of  God. 
If  any  one  fasted  at  an  appointed  time  or  did  anything  else 
of  the  kind,  he  thought  he  was  a  Christian ;  but  no  one  paid 
attention  to  his  calling,  yea,  it  was  not  worth  while,  that  a 
Christian  should  concern  himself  with  such  matters  as  man- 
aging the  household,  governing  wife,  children  and  servants, 
and  educating  them,  etc.  Such  works  were  accounted  as  be- 
longing to  the  weak  and  imperfect,  and  only  the  works  of 
hypocrisy  had  an  honorable  name  in  being  accounted  holy, 
Christian  and  well-pleasing  to  God. 

The  masters  of  canons  and  the  theologians  did  not  touch 
on  the  Scriptures,  but  were  forever  busy  with  these  things 
and  had  no  leisure  to  discourse  about  faith,  hope,  the  cross 
and  the  like.  In  this  matter  the  bishops  ought  to  have  in- 
terfered and  put  an  end  to  such  misery.  ]^ow  even  our  ad- 
versaries are  deriving  profit  on  these  points  and  are  able  to 
judge  the  traditions  of  men  more  clearly  than  heretofore. 

Our  teaching  on  this  point  is  to  this  effect  that  the  tra- 
ditions and  ordinances  of  men  do  not  merit  the  remission  of 
sins  and  are  not  to  be  exalted  as  necessary  unto  the  salvation 
of  souls.     This  we  prove  from  the  Scriptures.     When  the 


272         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Apostles  were  accused  of  having  transgressed  those  command- 
ments, Christ  said:  "In  vain  do  they  worship  me  with  the 
commandments  of  men."  Likewise:  ''Whatsoever  goeth  into 
the  month,  defileth  not  the  man."  Likewise  Paul:  "Let  no 
man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,"  etc.  Also  Acts  15  :  ''Why 
tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which 
neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear;  but  we  believe 
that  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  shall  be 
saved,  even  as  they."  Likewise  Paul  calls  the  prohibition  of 
meats  a  doctrine  of  devils.  Therefore  such  things  should 
not  be  demanded  of  Christians  as  necessary. 

^Nevertheless  many  traditions  are  observed  among  us,  such 
as  holy  days,  chanting  and  other  things  which  are  serviceable 
to  good  order  in  the  Church.  At  the  same  time  the  people 
are  warned  that  such  observances  are  kept,  not  of  necessity, 
but  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  that  it  should  not  be  made  sin, 
if  they  are  omitted  without  scandal. 

Such  liberty  was  also  used  by  the  Fathers,  as  can  be  learned 
from  many  decrees  and  canons.  In  the  East  they  kept  Easter 
at  another  time  than  at  Rome,  this  brought  no  discord  into 
the  Church. 

On  Monastic  Vows. 

This  discussion  does  not  concern  the  whole  Church ;  but 
only  a  few  special  persons,  for  which  reason  the  whole  con- 
gregation can  not  justly  be  rejected,  even  if  wrong  should 
be  found  in  this  change.  Nevertheless  we  will  also  recount 
here  what  we  teach  and  observe  in  this  matter. 

It  is  generally  known  what  has  been  the  state  of  the  mon- 
asteries and  how  many  things  Avere  done  in  them  contrary  to 
the  Canons.  In  Augustine's  time,  they  were  free  associations. 
Afterward,  when  discipline  was  corrupted,  vows  were  every- 
where added,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  discipline. 
Gradually  many  other  observances  were  added  besides  vows. 
And  these  fetters  were  laid  upon  many  before  the  lawful  age, 
contrary  to  the  Canons.     Many  also  entered  through  ignor- 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        273 

ance,  being  imable  to  judge  their  strength,  though  they  were 
of  sufficient  age.  Being  thus  ensnared,  they  were  compelled 
to  remain,  even  though  they  could  have  been  freed  by  the 
provision  of  the  Canons.  This  was  more  the  case  in  convents 
of  women  than  of  men,  although  more  consideration  should 
have  been  shown  them  on  account  of  their  weakness.  This 
rigor  displeased  many  good  men  before  this  time,  who  saw 
that  young  men  and  maidens  were  thrown  into  convents  for 
a  living  and  what  unfortunate  results  came  from  this  pro- 
cedure, what  scandals,  what  snares  upon  the  consciences !  It 
is  a  grievous  thing  to  learn  that  the  Canons  were  so  utterly 
despised  in  this  matter. 

To  this  was  added  an  all  too  great  exaltation  and  praise  of 
vows  although  this  also  was  not  pleasing  to  every  one.  They 
taught,  namely,  that  monastic  vows  were  equal  to  baptism 
and  that  they  merited  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justification 
before  God,  and  even  greater  things,  because  they  kept  not 
only  the  commandments,  but  also  the  "counsels." 

Thus  they  believed  that  the  monastic  life  was  much  better 
than  baptism  and  more  meritorious  than  the  life  of  magis- 
trates and  pastors  who  serve  their  calling  according  to  God's 
commands. 

But  what  came  to  pass  in  the  monasteries  ?  Aforetime  they 
were  schools  in  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  other  branches 
profitable  to  the  Church  were  taught  and  thence  pastors  and 
bishops  were  obtained.  In  those  days  they  came  together  for 
the  sake  of  studying.  I^ow  they  feign  that  it  is  a  life  in- 
stituted to  merit  grace  and  righteousness,  yea,  they  preach 
that  they  are  in  a  state  of  perfection  and  they  put  it  far  above 
other  kinds  of  life  ordained  of  God.  These  things  we  have 
rehearsed  in  the  least  odious  manner,  to  the  end  that  it  might 
be  the  better  understood  what  our  teachers  hold  on  this  point. 

First,  concerning  such  as  contract  matrimony,  they  teach 
that  it  is  lawful  for  all  who  are  not  fitted  for  the  single  life, 
to  contract  matrimony,  because  vows  cannot  annul  the  com- 
mandment and  ordinance  of  God.     But  the  commandment  of 


274:         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

God  is:  ''To  avoid  fornication,  let  every  man  have  his  own 
wife."  Nor  is  it  the  commandment  only,  but  also  the  creation 
and  ordinance  of  God  which  forces  those  to  marry  who  are 
not  excepted  by  a  singular  work  of  God,  according  to  the  text : 
''It  is  not  good  that  the  man  should  be  alone."  Therefore 
they  do  not  sin  who  obey  this  commandment  and  ordinance 
of  God.  What  objection  can  be  raised  to  this  ?  Let  men  extol 
the  vow  as  much  as  they  list,  yet  it  cannot  annul  the  com- 
mandment of  God.  The  Canons  teacli  that  the  right  of  the 
superior  is  excepted  in  every  vow;  how  then  can  these  vows 
be  of  force  against  God's  ordinance  ? 

If  then  those  vows  could  not  be  changed,  the  Popes  could 
not  have  given  dispensation  so  often,  for  what  God  binds,  no 
man  can  loose.  But  the  Popes  have  prudently  judged  in 
exercising  leniency  and  not  always  exercising  rigor. 

In  the  second  place,  why  do  they  exaggerate  the  obligation 
of  a  vow  when  at  the  same  time  they  are  silent  about  the  kind 
and  nature  of  the  vow,  that  it  ought  to  be  possible,  free  and 
chosen  spontaneously?  But  it  is  not  known  to  what  extent 
perpetual  chastity  is  in  the  power  of  man.  And  how  many 
are  there  who  have  taken  the  vow  spontaneously  and  deliber- 
ately ?  Truly  very  few.  Young  men  and  maidens,  before 
they  are  able  to  judge,  are  persuaded  and  sometimes  even  com- 
pelled to  take  the  vow.  Wherefore  it  is  not  fair  to  insist  so 
rigorously  on  tlie  obligation,  since  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  there  can  be  no  vow  unless  that  is  vowed  which  is  pos- 
sible, free  and  chosen  spontaneously. 

Many  Canons  rescind  vows  made  before  the  age  of  fifteen, 
for  before  that  age  there  does  not  seem  sufficient  judgment 
in  a  person  to  decide  concerning  the  whole  future  of  one's 
life.  Another  Canon  concedes  three  more  years  to  human 
weakness  that  fixes  the  age  at  eighteen  years.  Which  shall 
we  follow  ?  A  great  number  of  those  who  come  from  the 
monasteries  have  the  excuse  that  they  took  the  vow  before 
that  time. 

Finally  although  the  violation  of  a  vow  might  be  rebuked. 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        27o 

it  does  not  follow  that  marriage  between  sncli  persons  should 
be  invalid,  as  Augustine  writes,  whose  authority  herein  is 
justly  esteemed  although  other  men  afterwards  thought  other- 
wise. 

And  although  God's  command  concerning  marriage  delivers 
many  from  the  monastic  vow,  yet  we  introduce  another  argu- 
ment why  vows  should  be  invalid  and  void.  For  every  ser- 
vice of  God,  ordained  without  God's  command,  to  merit  justi- 
fication and  grace  is  unchristian  and  contrary  to  God,  as 
Christ  says:  "In  vain  do  they  worship  me  with  the  com- 
mandments of  men."  And  Paul  teaches  everywhere  that 
righteousness  is  not  to  be  sought  by  our  own  observances  and 
merits,  but  through  faith  in  Christ,  etc. 

Now  the  monks  have  taught  unblushingly,  that  their 
monastic  life  works  satisfaction  for  sin  and  merits  grace  and 
justification.  What  else  is  this  than  to  detract  from  the  glory 
of  Christ  and  to  deny  the  righteousness  of  faith  ?  It  follows 
therefore  undeniably  that  these  vows  are  an  unchristian  ser- 
vice and  therefore  void.  No  vow  shall  obligate  to  any  evil, 
as  if  any  one  vows  to  commit  a  murder,  he  does  wrong;  but 
if  he  breaks  this  vow  and  does  not  keep  it,  he  does  right. 

Also,  Paul  says :  "  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  to  you, 
whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law :  ye  are  fallen  from 
grace."  They,  therefore,  who  want  to  be  justified  by  their 
vows  have  fallen  from  grace  and  Christ, 

Above  all  this,  they  have  imparted  their  good  works  to 
others,  and  other  such  things  of  which  they  are  now  ashamed. 
It  is  truly  no  small  offence  to  set  forth  to  the  people  a  ser- 
vice devised  by  men,  without  the  commandment  of  God,  and 
to  teach  that  man  is  thereby  justified.  For  the  righteousness 
of  faith  which  chiefly  ought  to  be  preached,  as  well  as  God's 
commandment  and  the  true  worship  of  God  are  thereby  ob- 
scured, when  the  people  are  informed  that  only  the  monks 
live  in  a  state  of  perfection,  in  which  are  all  who  fear  God 
from  the  heart  and  have  a  sure  trust  that  for  Christ's  sake 
He  will  be  gracious  to  us  and  ask  of  God  and  assuredly  ex- 
pect His  aid  in  all  things. 


276         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  the  people  conceive  many  pernicious  opinions  from 
the  false  commendations  of  monastic  life.  They  hear  un- 
married life  praised  beyond  measure;  therefore  they  lead 
their  married  life  with  offense  to  their  consciences.  They 
hear  that  only  beggars  are  perfect,  therefore  they  keep  their 
possessions  and  do  business  with  offence  to  their  consciences. 
They  hear  that  it  is  an  evangelical  counsel  not  to  avenge; 
therefore  some  in  private  life  are  not  afraid  to  take  revenge, 
for  they  hear  that  it  is  but  a  counsel  and  not  a  commandment. 
It  also  follows  from  this  that  a  Christian  cannot  properly 
hold  a  civil  office  or  be  a  magistrate. 

There  are  examples  on  record  of  men  who  forsaking  mar- 
riage and  the  administration  of  the  Commonwealth,  have  hid 
themselves  in  monasteries.  This  they  call  fleeing  from  the 
world  and  seeking  a  life  which  should  be  more  pleasing  to 
God.  Xeither  did  they  see,  that  God  ought  to  be  served  in 
those  commandments  which  He  Himself  has  given  and  not 
in  commandments  devised  of  men.  Every  estate  that  has 
a  word  and  commandment  of  God  is  good  and  perfect.  That 
which  has  no  word  and  commandment  of  God  is  dangerous. 
It  is  necessary  to  admonish  men  of  these  things.  And  before 
these  times  Gcrson  rebuked  the  monks  for  calling  their  life 
one  of  perfection  and  says  that  in  his  day  it  was  still  a 
new  and  unusual  thing  to  say  so.  So  many  erroneous,  un- 
christian things  are  inherent  in  vows  that  they  must  justly 
be  considered  void. 

Of  tue  Power  of  the  Church. 

Aforetime  there  has  been  much  controversy  concerning  the 
Power  of  the  Bishops,  in  which  some  have  awkwardly  con- 
founded the  power  of  the  Church  and  the  power  of  the  sword. 
And  from  this  confusion  great  wars  and  tumults  have  re- 
sulted, while  the  bishops,  emboldened  by  their  power  of  the 
keys,  not  only  have  instituted  now  services,  and  burdened 
consciences  with  reservation  of  cases  and  the  powerful  ban, 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        277 

but  have  also  undertaken  to  transfer  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world  and  to  take  the  Empire  from  the  Emperor.  These 
"wrongs  have  long  since  in  the  Church  been  rebuked  by 
learned  and  pious  men.  Therefore  for  the  comforting  of 
men's  consciences,  we  were  constrained  to  show  the  difference 
between  the  poAver  of  the  Church  and  the  power  of  the  sword. 
We  teach  on  this  ])oint:  that  the  power  of  the  bishops  or  the 
power  of  the  keys,  is  a  power  or  commandment  of  God 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  to  remit  and  retain  sins,  and  to  ad- 
minister the  sacraments.  Eor  with  that  commandment 
Christ  sends  out  His  Apostles:  "As  my  Father  hath  sent 
me,  even  so  send  I  you.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,"  etc.  Mark  16 :  "Go,  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature." 

This  power  is  exercised  only  by  preaching  the  Gospel 
and  administering  the  sacraments,  to  one  or  more  as  one  is 
called.  For  thereby  are  granted,  not  bodily,  but  eternal 
things:  as  eternal  righteousness,  the  Holy  Ghost,  eternal 
life.  These  things  cannot  come  but  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Word  and  the  Sacraments.  As  Paul  says :  "  The  Gospel  is 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth." 
And  Psalm  118 :  "  Thy  Word  quickeneth  me."  Therefore 
since  the  power  of  the  Church  grants  eternal  things  and  is 
exercised  only  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  it  does  not  inter- 
fere with  civil  government,  no  more  than  singing  or  arith- 
metic interferes  with  civil  government.  For  civil  govern- 
ment deals  with  other  things  than  does  the  Gospel;  the  civil 
rulers  defend  not  the  souls,  but  the  bodies  and  bodily 
things  against  manifold  injuries  and  restrain  men  with  the 
sword  and  bodily  punishments  in  order  to  preserve  civil 
justice  and  peace. 

Therefore  the  power  of  the  Church  and  civil  power  must 
not  be  confounded.  The  spiritual  power  has  its  own  com- 
mandment, to  teach  the  Gospel  and  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments. Let  it  not  break  into  the  office  of  another,  let  it  not 
transfer  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  let  it  not  abrogate  the 


278         TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

laws  of  civil  rulers ;  let  it  not  abolish  lawful  obedience ;  let 
it  not  interfere  with  judgments  concerning  civil  ordinances 
or  contracts,  let  it  not  prescribe  laws  to  civil  rulers  concern- 
ing the  form  of  the  Commonwealth.  As  Christ  says :  "  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.'*'  Also :  "  Who  made  me  a 
judge  or  a  divider  over  you  ?"  Paul  also  says :  "Our  citizen- 
ship is  in  heaven."  Likewise :  "  The  weapons  of  our  war- 
fare are  not  carnal ;  but  mighty  through  God  to  the  casting 
down  of  imaginations."  Thus  we  discriminate  between  the 
duties,  might  and  office  of  both  these  powers,  and  command 
that  both  be  honored  as  gifts  of  God. 

If  the  bishops  have  any  worldly  power  besides,  they  have 
it  not  as  bishops,  by  the  commission  of  the  Gospel,  but  by  hu- 
man law,  having  received  it  of  kings  and  emperors  for  the 
civil  administration  of  what  is  theirs.  This,  however,  is 
another  office  than  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel. 

Our  teachers"  have  always  taught,  for  the  avoidance  of 
rebellion  and  riot,  that  temporal  possessions  and  power, 
whether  possessed  by  bishops  or  secular  gentlemen,  are  of  no 
hindrance  to  the  conscience.  An  honest  distribution  of 
property  and  magistracies  is  not  contrary  to  the  Gospel.  The 
Apostles  were  fishermen,  Luke  a  physician,  Paul  a  weaver. 
Their  art  and  craft  they  retained  with  a  clear  conscience  and 
practiced  it,  although  that  was  different  from  the  ministry  of 
the  Gospel  and  yet  their  conscience  was  not  burdened  thereby. 
Thus  every  pastor  may  own  property,  some  less,  some  more, 
for  the  Gospel  commands  that  an  adequate  support  be  given 
the  pastors ;  but  they  are  to  use  their  temporal  possessions 
in  such  a  way  as  not  to  neglect  their  ministry.  Thus  bishops 
are  to  be  mindful  of  the  duties  of  their  office  and  not  only 
manage  their  secular  government,  although  it  is  very  difficult 
to  do  both  at  once. 

When  therefore   a  question  arises  concerning  the  juris- 


'The  foHowing  was  already  known  to  us  from  the  Ansbach  text  (Forste- 
mann,  I,  542)  and  the  pre-Melanchthonian  print  which  had  it  for  a  source, 
namely,  the  so-called  editio  antiquior   (C   R.,  XXVI,  231). 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        270 

diction  of  bishops,  civil  authority  must  be  distinguished  from 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  For  according  to  the  Gospel  or 
the  commandment  of  (lod,  to  the  bishops  as  bishops,  no 
power  belongs,  except  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  the 
sacraments,  to  forgive  sins,  to  discern  between  Christian  an«l 
unchristian  doctrine,  and  reject  the  unchristian,  to  exclude 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church  wicked  men  whose  wick- 
edness is  known,  and  this  without  human  force,  simply  by 
the  Word.  Herein  the  congregations  are  bound  by  the  Di- 
vine Law  to  obey  them,  as  it  is  written :  "  He  that  heareth 
you,  heareth  me." 

But  when  they  teach  or  ordain  anything  against  the  Gos- 
pel, we  are  prohibited  from  obeying  them.  Matth.  7 :  "Be- 
ware of  false  prophets."  Gal.  1 :  "  Though  an  angel  from 
heaven  j)reach  another  Gospel,  let  him  be  accursed."  Like- 
wise 1  Cor.  13 :  "We  can  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  bu't 
for  the  truth."  Also :  "  The  power  which  the  Lord  hath 
given  me  to  edification  and  not  to  destruction."  Thus  also 
the  canonical  laws  say  more  elsewhere,  and  St.  Augustine 
says:  "  Not  even  to  Catholic  bishops  must  we  submit,  if  they 
chance  to  err  or  hold  anything  contrary  to  the  Canonical 
Scriptures  of  God." 

Moreover,  it  is  disputed  whether  bishops  or  pastors  have 
the  right  to  introduce  ceremonies  in  the  Church,  and  to 
make  laws  concerning  meats,  holy  days  and  orders  of  min- 
isters, etc.  They  that  claim  this  right  for  the  bishops  refer 
to  this  word  of  Christ :  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit,  when  he  the 
Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth." 
They  also  refer  to  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  who  com- 
manded to  abstain  from  blood  and  from  .things  strangled. 
They  refer  to  the  Sabbath  day,  as  having  been  changed  into 
the  Lord's  Day,  contrary  to  an  express  commandment  of  God, 
upon  which  they  insist  most  of  all,  that  a  bishop  should  have 
such  power. 

Concerning  this  question,  it  is  taught  on  our  part,  that 


280         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

no  bishop  has  power  to  decree  anytliing  against  the  Gospel. 
Xow  it  is  plainly  against  the  Scriptures  to  establish  any 
observance,  whereby  we  may  come  into  grace  or  make  satis- 
faction for  sins.  For  thereby  Christ  is  dishonored.  From 
this  reason,  that  men  have  thought  to  merit  much  thereby, 
such  traditions  as  holy  days,  fasting  and  worship  of  saints 
have  so  much  multiplied  in  the  Church.  It  is  manifestly 
against  God  to  make  a  sin  of  meat  and  holy  days,  as  though 
we  were  still  under  the  Old  Testament.  Hence  perhaps 
some  bishops  have  been  tempted  to  make  such  observances. 
Hence  it  is  that  they  make  it  a  mortal  sin  even  without 
offence  to  others,  to  do  manual  labor  on  holy-days,  or  to  omit 
the  Canonical  Hours. 

Whence  have  the  bishops  the  right  to  ensnare  consciences 
Avith  these  traditions,  when  Peter  forbids  to  put  a  yoke  on 
the  neck  of  disciples,  and  Paul  says  that  the  power  given 
him  was  unto  edification,  not  to  destruction  ?  "  If  ye  be 
dead  with  Christ  from  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  why,  as 
though  living  in  the  world,  are  ye  subject  to  ordinances, 
touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not,  which  all  are  to  perish  with 
the  using,  after  the  commandments  and  doctrines  of  men  ?" 
Also  in  Titus :  "  Not  giving  heed  to  Jewish  fables  and  com- 
mandments of  men,  that  turn  from  the  truth."  Likewise 
Christ  says,  of  those  who  require  traditions,  ^[atth.  15  :  "  Let 
them  alone,  they  are  blind  leaders  of  the  blind."  Likewise: 
"  Every  plant  which  my  Heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted, 
shall  be  plucked  up." 

Hence  it  follows  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  bishop  to 
institute  or  exact  such  services,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  did 
not  warn  us  against  this  in  vain,  especially  if  they  be  con- 
sidered necessary,  or  one  thinks  to  obtain  grace  thereby. 
For  Christian  liberty  must  everywhere  be  preserved  in  the 
Church,  so  that  all  may  know  that  we  are  justified  not  through 
the  Law  or  works,  but  from  grace  through  faith  in  Christ. 

What,  tlien,  are  we  to  think  of  the  change  of  the  Sabbath 
to  Sunday  ?     To  this  we  answer,  we  confess  that  it  is  lawful 


OLDEST   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.        281 

for  Lishops  to  make  ordinances  that  things  be  clone  orderly 
in  tlie  (Jhurch,  not  that  thereby  we  should  merit  grace  or 
make  satisfaction  for  sins,  or  that  consciences  should  be 
bound  not  to  break  them.  So  Paul  ordains,  that  women 
should  cover  their  head  in  the  congregation  and  that  inter- 
preters should  be  heard  in  order  in  the  Church. 

It  is  proper  that  such  ordinances  should  be  kept  for  the 
sake  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  that  all  things  be  done  in 
the  churches  in  order,  and  that  no  one  be  given  offence  and 
that  no  conscience  be  burdened. 

Thus  it  is  with  Sunday,  Easter,  Pentecost  and  other  holy 
days.  For  those  who  judge  that  they  are  ordered  thus  of 
necessity,  do  greatly  err.  The  Gospel  has  utterly  abrogated 
the  Sabbath  and  other  Jewish  ceremonies,  and  yet  it  was 
necessary  to  appoint  a  certain  day  that  the  people  might 
come  together,  for  which  purpose  the  Church  elected  the 
Sunday,  perhaps,  also,  for  the  sake  of  Christian  liberty, 
so  that  one  might  see  that  we  are  not  bound  to  the  Sabbath. 

But  the  bishops  might  easily  retain  the  lawful  obedience 
of  the  people,  if  they  would  not  insist  upon  the  observance  of 
such  traditions  as  can  not  be  kept  with  a  good  conscience. 
N^ow  they  command  celibacy.  They  admit  none,  unless  they 
swear  that  they  will  not  teach  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 
We  do  not  ask  that  the  bishops  should  restore  concord  at  the 
expense  of  their  honor,  which,  nevertheless,  it  would  be  pro- 
per for  good  pastors  to  do.  We  only  ask  that  they  would  re- 
lease unjust  burdens  which  are  new  and  have  been  received 
contrary  to  the  Church  Catholic.  It  may  be  that  there  were 
plausible  reasons  for  some  of  these  ordinances ;  and  yet  they 
are  not  adapted  to  modern  times.  It  is  also  evident  that  some 
were  adopted  through  erroneous  conceptions.  Therefore  it 
would  be  befitting  the  clemency  of  the  bishops  to  mitigate 
them  now;  because  such  a  modification  does  not  shake  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  For  many  human  traditions  have  been 
changed,   as   the  canons  themselves   show. 

But  if  it  be  impossible  to  obtain  a  mitigation  of  such  ob- 


282         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

servances  as  cannot  be  kept  without  sin,  we  are  bound  to  fol- 
low the  Apostolic  rule,  which  connnands  us  to  obey  God 
rather  than  men.  Peter  forbids  bishops  to  be  lords  and  to  rule 
over  the  churches.  Now,  it  is  not  our  design  to  wrest  the 
government  from  the  bishops,  but  we  ask  that  they  allow  the 
Gospel  to  be  purely  taught  and  that  they  relax  some  few 
observances  which  cannot  be  kept  without  sin.  But  if  they 
make  no  concession,  it  is  for  them  to  see  how  they  shall  give 
account  to  God,  for  having,  by  their  obstinacy,  caused  a 
schism. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

THE  HAND  OF  GOD  IN"  THE  FORM ATIOT^  OF  THE 

AUGSBURG   C0NFESSI0:N',   AS   SHOWN   BY 

THE    COURSE    OF    EVENTS    IN    1529 

AND  ir.;]0,  AND  IN  THE  LETTERS 

OF    LUTHER,    AND    OF 

MELANCHTHON. 

The  Real  Question  as  to  the  Augsburg  Confession — The  Emperor's  Call — The 
History  of  the  Reformation  up  to  Augsburg — The  Elector  takes  the  Beginnings 
of  his  Apology  to  Augsburg — The  Emperor  Delays  and  the  Elector  Awaits 
His  Coming— The  Saxon  Apology  Becomes  a  Confession — The  Question  of 
Preaching  a  Test — The  Submission  of  the  Confession  to  Luther — The  Emperor's 
Entry  into  Augsburg — The  Opening  of  the  Diet — The  First  Ten  Days  of  Sus- 
pense— The  Confession  Completed  and  Delivered — The  Attitude  of  Melanch- 
thon — Confessional  History  Subsequent  to  the  Delivery  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession— The  Hand  of  Providence. 

THIS  chapter  is  a  chronological  study  of  events,  and  of 
the  original  sources, — aiming,  among  other  things,  to 
place  the  facts  before  the  reader,  in  order  that  he  may  be 
in  a  position  to  investigate  tlie  evidence  for  himself,  and  to 
form  his  own  judgment.  With  this  chapter,  Chapters  XV 
and  XI  of  this  work,  the  former  by  Theodor  Kolde,  and 
Chapter  VI  of  "  The  Conservative  Reformation,"  should  be 
constantly  compared. 

We  have  seen  that  it  is  a  mistake,  in  discussing  the  history 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to  lay  all  stress  on  attempting  to 
establish  the  claim  of  authorship  in  behalf  of  one  or  another 
person. 

The  real  question  is,  how  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  all 

283 


28-t         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

its  greatness,  came  into  being  as  the  resultant  of  the  forces 
struggling  for  the  mastery  in  this  critical  epoch  of  the 
Christian  Church.  How  did  the  great  principles  of  w'hich 
the  Confession  is  the  great  bearer,  come  to  their  maturity 
in  the  form  in  which  they  were — to  the  surprise  of  all — 
formally  presented  and  confessed  at  Augsburg  ? 

Investigators  and  historians  have  been  looking  on  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  a  raaitcr  of  form  intended,  and  as 
complete  in  the  eye  and  mind  and  hand  of  Luther  and 
Melanchthon,  one  or  both ;  whereas,  in  fact,  these  men  were 
not  conscious  of  the  standard  character  and  the  finality  of 
what  they  would  be  obliged  to  evolve  and  present,  in  the 
situation  which  they  were  called  to  meet  at  Augsburg.  The 
Augustana,  as  the  macjna  cliarta  of  the  Evangelical  Church, 
was  not  premeditated  by  either  the  Elector,  Luther,  or  Me- 
lanchthon, but  was  a  growth  resulting  from  many  historical 
factors,  solely  under  the  Providence  of  God. 

That  the  two  leading  personalities  of  the  lieformation  had 
no  previous  conception  of  the  universal  and  immortal  char- 
acter of  the  Confession  they  were  preparing;  that  many 
historical  elements,  contributed,  despite  the  unwillingness  of 
each  and  all  the  principals  on  both  the  Lutheran  and  the 
Eoman  sides  of  the  struggle,  to  the  mighty  result,  attained 
in  this  Confession  for  all  time — a  result  unforeseen  by  all, 
and  in  which  the  labors  of  each,  beside  the  clear  and  mar- 
velous guidance  of  Providence,  sink  into  comparative  insig- 
nificance :  it  is  the  object  of  this  chapter  to  establish. 

As  for  the  authorship  itself,  notwithstanding  the  change 
of  view-point  and  the  modification  of  details  brought  about 
by  modern  discoveries,  we  find  nothing  that  will  set  aside 
the  substantiality  of  the  old  verdict  that  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  Luther's  Lelir  in  Melanchthon's  7nouth.'     Barring 


■>  Melanchthon,  Mstorxa  de  vita  Luthcri  lit.  B.  3 :  Qiiam  formam  doctrinae 
&  administrationis  sacramentorum  probauerit  L>itherus,  liquet  ex  confessions, 
quam  elector  .Johannes,  &  Philippus  liandgrafius  imp.  Carolo  V.  anno  1530. 
exhibuerunt. — Cyprian,  p.  58. 


PROVIDENCE   AN\    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     385 

John's  part,  this  is  in  line  with  other  documents  prepared  in 
consultation  by  these  two  great  Confessors  of  the  Refor- 
mation, except  that  Luther's  enforced  absence  from  Augs- 
burg gave  Melanchthon  a  centrality  and  a  standing  in  the 
work  of  public  confession,  which  had  been  lacking  hith- 
erto, and  which  is  seen  still  more  fully  developed  in  the 
authorship  of  the  Apology  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The 
real  significance  of  the  new  light  upon  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  this :  that  in  the  course  of  events  during  the  Spring 
of  1530,  by  the  hand  of  God,  the  presentation  at  Augsburg 
became  something  very  different  from  what  it  was  originally 
intended  to  be,  and  that  it  bears  its  present  broad,  clear  and 
permanent  form,  not  by  the  conscious  intention  of  Luther 
or  Melanchthon,  but  as  a  result  of  unexpected  pressure  from 
foes,  and  under  the  constructive  hand  of  the  various  Lutheran 
forces — undesignedly  united — that  signed  it. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Emperor  himself  set 
the  matter  in  motion,  and  in  his  Call  to  the  Protestants  to 
attend  the  Diet,  unexpectedly  promised  great  mildness  and 
grace  in  dealing  with  them.  This  Imperial  Call  filled  the 
Elector,  Luther  and  Melanchthon  with  hope.  Eor  the  Elec- 
tor, this  trust,  with  cautious  distrust,  in  the  Emperor  probably 
continued  to  abide  until  the  latter  delayed  his  coming,  and 
then  issued  the  command  to  the  Protestants  to  stop  preaching 
at  Augsburg.  It  continued  much  longer  in  Melanchthon, 
though  broken  temporarily  by  the  sudden  revelation,  pre- 
cipitating Melanchthon  into  great  fright,  of  the  Emperor's 
harshness  at  Corpus  Christi;  while  in  Luther  it  was  not  so 
enthusiastic,  but  is  visible  in  his  "Admonition  "  and  in  his 
private  correspondence,  and  because  of  his  meagre  informa- 
tion at  Coburg  probably  continued  until  after  the  delivery  of 
the  Confession. 


286         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

THE  EMPEROR'S  CALL  FOR  THE  DIET  AT  AUGSBURG. 


Original  in  the  Archives  at  Weimar. 

Printed  in  Forstemann,  Urkundenbuch  I,  p.  2;  Lunig's  Reichs-Archiv,  part.  geu. 
cont.  I,  p.  496. 

January  2ist,  i^jo. 

To  THE  High-born  John,  Duke  of  Saxony, 

Landgrave  ok  ThOringen  and  Margrave  of  Meissen, 
Chief  Marshall  of  the  Holy  RoxMan  Empire. 

Our  Dear  Uncle  and  Elector  : 

Charles  by  God's  grace  the  elected  Roman  Emperor,  etc We  should 

like  to  abolish  all  injustice  after  hearing  and  diligently  weighing  every  opinion  and 
view  in  the  honorable  German  nation,  and  to  uphold  what  is  right  and  honorable 
by  the  papal  holiness  and  our  imperial  might,  authority,  and  permission,  and  thus 
have  the  Holy  Empire  of  the  German  nation  once  more  brought  into  unity.    .   .   . 

Recently  the  arch-enemy  of  our  holy  faith,  the  Turk,  has  invaded  the  Christian 
Kingdom  of  Hungary  and  our  Fatherland,  the  arch-duchy  of  Austria.    .    .    . 

We  have  found  in  the  Pope  a  much  greater  desire  than  we  hoped,  to  order  all 
things  in  the  German  nation  and  in  the  Christian  religion,  in  a  right  and  honorable 
way.    .   .   . 

Therefore  we,  as  Roman  Emperor  and  Head  of  Christendom,  have  thought  it 
good  and  useful  to  undertake  a  common  Diet  [Reichstag]  and  Assembly,  and  have 
resolved  to  hold  it  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  coming  month  of  April  in  our  and  the 
holy  city  of  Augsburg.   .   .   . 

Because  of  the  duty  you  owe  to  us  and  to  the  empire,  we  command  you  to  appear 
in  person  at  Augsburg  on  that  day,  together  with  the  other  princes  and  estates, 
....  that  we  may  take  up  the  matter  of  deliverance  from  the  Turk  ;  further, 
how,  because  of  error  and  division,  it  may  be  possible  to  deal  and  determine  in 
respect  to  the  Holy  Faith  and  the  Christian  Religion. 

And  in  order  that  this  may  occur  in  a  more  wholesome  way,  (we  desire  to) 
settle  the  differences,  abandon  obstinacy,  give  over  past  erroneousness  into  the  hand 
of  our  Redeemer,  and  use  diligence  to  listen  to,  understand  and  weigh  every  expres- 
sion, opinion  and  view  in  love  and  graciousness  among  ourselves,  to  compare  and  to 
bring  them  to  a  single  Christian  Truth,  and  to  do  away  with  everything  that  has  not 
been  explained  or  transacted  right  on  both  sides,  that  we  all  may  hold  one  single 
and  true  Religion,  and,  as  we  all  are  and  do  battle  under  one  Christ,  we  may  thus 
all  live  in  one  Commonwealth,  one  Church  and  one  Unity.   .   .   . 

Given  on  the  first  and  twentieth  day  of  January. 

Carol. 
Ad  mandatum  Csesareee  et  Catholica  Majest.  proprium.'' 


'»  The  document  is  lengthy,  and  for  brevity's  sake  we  have  included  only 
Korae  of  the  more  vital  utterances,  in  condensed  translation.  We  have  also 
condensed  many  of  the  documents  and  letters  which  follow  in  this  chapter. 
Otherwise  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  reproduce  them  for  the  reader. 
In  every  instance,  pains  has  been  taken  to  convey  the  substance  and  render 
the  exact  sense. — T.   E.   S. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUOUSTANA.     287 

This  summons,  commanding  the  Electors,  Princes,  and  all 
the  Estates  of  the  Empire  to  meet  at  Augsburg  on  the  8tli  of 
April,  was  issued  at  Bologna.  No  threats  marred  the  invita- 
tion. The  Emperor  announced  that  he  meant  to  leave  all 
past  errors  to  the  judgment  of  the  Redeemer ;  that  he  wished 
to  give  a  charitable  hearing  to  every  man's  opinions ;  and 
that  his  only  desire  was  to  secure  to  all  the  right  to  live 
under  the  one  Christ,  in  one  Commonwealth,  one  Church, 
and  one  Unity. 

Thus  there  appeared  in  the  Protestant  world  this  Call  for 
the  purification  of  the  Church  and  the  reunion  of  a  rended 
Christendom  after  every  diverging  judgment  had  been  gra- 
ciously and  fairly  weighed,  and  every  difference  honorably 
adjusted.  Thus  by  the  sweet,  gracious  and  winning  way  of 
the  thirty-year-old  Emperor,  who  was  coming  to  his  German 
dominions  at  last,  with  a  fair  mind  against  errors  and  abuses, 
but  a  closed  heart  against  protest,  were  the  Elector,  Luther, 
and  Melanchthon  deceived. 


The  Emperor. 

The  sturdy  German  princes  and  rulers  of  the  holy  Roman 
empire,  in  electing  Charles,  were  under  the  illusion  that  they 
would  secure  a  German  ruler,  after  the  fashion  of  old  [Max, 
the  beloved  grandfather  of  Charles ;  but,  too  late,  they  found 
they  had  a  Spaniard! 

Not  that  the  young  Emperor  lacked  principles,  convictions, 
conscientiousness,  integrity  and  honor;  but  that  his  outlook, 
his  ideas  of  unity,  government  and  rule,  were  those  of  the 
Latin  race ;  and  his  court  and  counsellors,  with  one  or  two 
notable  exceptions,  were  under  the  spell  of  Rome.  He  was 
not  on  the  side  of  the  Pope  in  politics,  and  he  was  not  com- 
mitted to  the  Curial  view  of  absolute  papal  supremacy;  but 
he  was  a  loyal  son  of  the  visible  Church  Catholic,  and  he  felt 
it  to  be  his  highest  duty  to  preserve  the  unity  and  continuity 
of  the  Mediaeval  ecclesiasticism  with  its  authority  and  its 


288         THE    LU  Til  EUAN    CONFESSIONS. 

rites;  though  he  clave  to  the  idea  of  purification  in  doctrine 
and  rites,  and  to  the  principle  that  the  ultimate  earthly 
seat  of  authority  was  not  the  Pope,  but  a  General  Council. 

From  his  earliest  days  to  his  final  hours  of  rule  this  one 
thing  seemed  to  be  the  chief  matter  on  his  conscience,  that 
he  must  not  allow  the  ''  rending  of  the  seamless  mantle  of  the 
Church." ' 

This  conviction,  gradually  working  out  into  history,  made 
Charles  the  real  great  and  decisive  political  enemy  of  the 
Lutheran  faith ;  and  the  course  of  Protestant  events  is  af- 
fected at  every  point  by  his  activity.  In  this  one  point  he 
was,  like  llelanchthon,  and  like  the  unionist  to-day,  pre- 
j)ared  to  sacrifice  inner  issues  to  the  restoration  of  visible 
unity. 

Charles  was  born  in  1500,  and  was  a  mere  youth  of  twenty 
years  when  he  first  saw  Luther  at  the  Diet  at  Worms  in 
ir>21,  wliere  Lutlier  was  brought  so  close  to  him  on  that 
memorable  afternoon,  that  the  Reformer's^  heart  was  moved 
to  pity  as  he  saw  the  thoughtful  Emperor's  face,  and  felt  his 
youtliful  Majesty  was  "  like  some  poor  lauib  surrounded  by 
swine  and  hounds."* 

Yet  the  address  the  Emperor  read  on  that  fateful  occasion 
might  have  convinced  the  most  skeptical  that  his  one  ultimate 
determination,  to  tlie  achievement  of  which  lie  would  sacri- 
fice success  and  em])ire,  was  to  put  down  the  Lutheran  Refor- 
mation as  a  separate  movement.     Hear  his  words: 


CHAKLKS   v.,   AT   WORMS,   1521. 

♦'What  my  forefather  established  at  Constance  and  other  Councils,  it  is  my 
privilege  to  uphold.     A  single  monk  led  astray  by  private  judgment  has  set  him- 


2  Armstrong,    The   Emp.    Charles   V.,   Lon.    1902.      I.    71. 

*  Luther  was  facing  death.  He  had  said  to  Melanchthon  in  taking  leave, 
"  My  dear  brother,  if  I  do  not  come  back,  if  my  enemies  put  me  to  death, 
you  will  go  on  teaching  and  standing  fast  in  the  truth.  If  you  live,  my  death 
will   matter  little." 

*  De   Wette,    Br.    1.    589. 


PROVIDENCE   AXD    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.     289 

self  against  the  faith  held  by  all  Christians  for  a  thousand  years  and  more,  and 
impudently  concludes  that  all  Christians  up  to  this  time  had  erred.  /  hai'e  there- 
fore resolved  to  stake  upon  this  cause  all  my  dominions,  my  friends,  my  body 
and  my  blood,  my  life  and  soul."  •» 

Had  the  Elector  and  the  Keformers,  when  they  read  the 
Emperor's  Call  to  Augsburg  a  decade  later,  forgotten  the 
man  they  had  to  deal  with,  or  thought  that  the  imminent 
presence  of  the  Turk  disposed  his  heart  differently  toward 
Evangelical  Germany  ?  It  was  ten  full  years  now  since  his 
attention  had  first  been  directed  to  the  Ilcformation.  On 
May  12th,  1520,  Juan  Manuel,  his  embassador  at  Home,  had 
written  to  Charles  asking  him  to  consider  ''  a  certain  Martin 
Lnther  who  belongs  to  the  following  of  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,"*  and  whose  preaching  was  not  satisfactory  to  the 
Roman  Curia.  Manuel  meant  that  Lnther  might  be  a  serv- 
iceable foil  for  the  Emperor's  use  in  a  diplomatic  contest 
with  the  Curia. 

One  year  after  this,  Charles,  who  owed  his  crown  to  the 
supporters  of  Luther  in  Germany  and  A\ho  needed  the  sup- 
port of  Germany  in  the  impending  conflict  with  Francis  L, 
nevertheless  gravely  declared,  as  we  have  seen,  that  he  would 
put  down  Lutheranism  though  it  cost  him  his  dominions,  his 
blood,  and  his  soul. 


The  SiGNiFicA?fCE  of  the  Diets  Prior  to  Augsburg. 

But  the  German  princes  at  Worms  formed  a  cordon  of 
safety  around  their  precious  Luther.  They  held  stoutly  to 
the  political   doctrine   that  their   fellow-countryman   should 


^Deutsche  Rcichstaysaktcn,   etc.,    ii,   595. 

*  Calendar  of  State  Papers — Spanish,   1509-1525,   Lon.    1866,   p.    305. 

In  1521,  the  King  of  England  wrote  that  Luther's  doctrine  was  already 
known  at  that  time  in  the  whole  world.  Docum.  reform.,  II,  p.  223.  In  this 
year  the  wealthy  King  Emmanuel  of  Portugal  sent  an  embassador  to  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  begging  him  to  punish  Luther  according  to  the  magnitude  of 
his  deeds,  and  to  rout  out  his  doctrine. — Docum.  reformationis,  II,  p.  213. 
The  King  of  England,  Henry  VTII.  also  begged  the  Emperor  in  a  writing 
that  he  would  destroy  Luther,  as  far  as  possible,  with  fire,  force  and  the 
sword. — Cyprian,   p.    28. 


290         TEE   LUTHER  AX    CONFESSIONS. 

not  be  set  under  the  ban  before  he  were  heard,  with  them- 
selves (not  the  Pope)  as  his  judges.  It  was  April  19th, 
1521,  when  the  Emperor  proposed  the  ban;  and  when  the 
Germans,  forcing  him  to  temporarily  yield,  drew  forth  from 
him  his  innermost  determination  in  the  paper  referred  to 
above.  Later  he  warmly  insisted  that  he  would  never  alter 
one  iota  of  his  declaration.  There  was  to  be  no  compromise 
between  him  and  Luther:'  the  edict  was  passed,  and  the  ban' 
was  to  be  published ;  but  Luther  had  disappeared. 

The  imj^erial  edict  was  unheeded  and  never  harmed 
Luther.'  The  following  Diet  of  1522,  and  that  of  1523, 
reminded  Hadrian  VI.,  who  was  not  versed  in  German  af- 
fairs, that  if  the  Pope  had  grievance  against  Luther,  Ger- 
many had  grievance  against  the  Pope,  for  permitting  abuses 
which  he  was  blaming  Luther  for  pointing  out.  The  Diet 
in  1524"  also  did  nothing  to  execute  the  edict  of  Worms 
against  Luther.  It  agreed  to  enforce  the  edict  "as  far  as 
possible,"  and  agitated  for  a  National  Council — to  the  alarm 
of  the  Pope,  who  thereupon  succeeded  in  having  the  German 
Catholic  princes  organize  into  a  secret  League,  thus  for  the 


'  Charles,  shortly  before  his  death,  regretted  that  Luther  had  not  been 
burned  by  him. 

*  The  Emperor  .signed  the  edict  with  a  smile.  We  meet  Valdcs  already 
at  this  time.  A  humanist,  and  a  follower  of  Erasmus,  Valdes  blamed  the 
Pope  for  the  ban.  Lindsay  says  strikingly,  "  The  humanist  young  .sovereign 
and  the  humanist  pope,  from  whom  so  much  had  been  expected,  congratulated 
each   other  on   Luther's  condemnation." 

In  the  edict  of  Worms  the  Emperor  expressly  states  that  the  Pope  had 
requested  him  to  give  over  the  bodily  sword  to  him  for  the  rescue  of  the 
honor  of  Christ ;  and  that,  in  accordance  with  this,  he  now  places  this  devil, 
transformed  into  human  form  and  wearing  the  robe  of  a  monk,  under  the 
bail. — Cyprian,   p.    27. 

■  Duke  George  complained  that  Luther's  presence  at  Wittenberg  was  an 
insult   to   the    Empire. 

'"  Hadrian  had  died,  and  Clement  VII.,  who  was  under  French  influence, 
took  his  place.  It  was  at  this  diet  that  Campeggio  first  appeared  on  the 
.«!cene   as   the   nuucio   of  Clement. 

The  exiled  Queen  of  Denmark,  the  sister  of  Charles  V.,  Isabella,  at  this 
time  became  a  confessor  of  the  Evangelical  religion.  Carlstadt  began  his 
fanaticism  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Supper  in  this  year,  from  which  the 
lamentable  division  between  the  Evangelicals  and  the  Reformed  arose. — Cy- 
prian, p.    32. 


PRO  VIDE  ME    ASD    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.      2di 

first  time  dividing  Germany  against  itself,  politically,  into 
Protestant  and  Catholic." 

Up  to  this  date  the  Elector  of  Saxony  confidently  expected 
a  ])eaceful  and  unanimous  settlement  of  the  religious  difficul- 
ties in  Germany,  but  in  1525  the  great  storm  of  the  Peasants' 
uprising  swept  across  the  country,  for  which  Luther  was 
blamed,''  which  solidified  the  South  German  anti-Protestant 
Federation,  composed  of  Austria,  Bavaria  and  ducal  Saxony, 
and  which  for  all  subsequent  time  introduced  a  Roman  and 
a  Lutheran  party  into  the  religious  politics  of  Germany." 

The  Diet  this  year,  1525,  was  held  at  Augsburg;  but  was 
poorly  attended  and  the  crisis  was  delayed  until  1526,  when 
the  Diet  should  be  held  at  Spires.  In  1526  at  Spires  the 
Lutherans  were  in  the  majority  though  Ferdinand  presided. 


"  Chytraeus  in  his  Hisloria  Dcr  AiKjsjtiirf/ischen  Confession  on  pp.  3  and  4 
sums  up  the  imperial  situation  to  this  point,  admirably,  in  the  following 
paragraphs : — ■ 

"  The  Emperor  Charles  V.  put  Martin  Luther  under  the  ban  at  Worms  in 
1521  ;  but  Luther  stood  firm  as  a  rock,  immovable  either  to  storm  or  the 
waves  of  the  sea.  Samson-like  he  overthrew  the  two  most  prominent  pillars 
of  the  papacy,  namely,  the  abomination  of  the  masses,  and  the  vows  of  the 
monks,    and   wrote   refutations    in    his    Patmos. 

"  Meanwhile  the  Emperor  Charles  was  called  away  on  account  of  the  discord 
and  disturbances  among  his  subjects  in  Spain,  and  because  of  the  war  in 
Navarre,  and  again  in  Spain,  and  eight  whole  years  hereafter  was  burdened 
with  the  Italian  Wars.  Although  Italy  has  been  greatly  plagued  by  the.se 
wars,  nevertheless,  as  God  does  not  allow  anything  to  happen  without  our 
getting  some  good  out  of  it,  so  I  believe  that  the  Emperor  Charles  was  de- 
tained through  Providence  by  these  wars  so  that  in  his  absence  the  execution 
of  the  edict  of  Worms  might  be  postponed,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
might  be  securely  and  early  spread  forever  into  Germany  and  other  nations. 
But,  meantime  other  Diets  concerning  religious  affairs  were  held :  the  first 
at  Niirnberg,  where  the  estates,  through  fear  of  the  growing  restlessness  and 
disturbances  in  the  people  themselves,  delayed  the  execution  of  the  edict  of 
Worms  and  the  Gospel  was  both  to  be  preached  according  to  the  understanding 
and  interpretation  given  it  by  the  Church  of  God ;  and,  then,  in  order  that 
the  conflict  in  worship  might  be  settled  and  abuses  in  the  Romish  Churches 
might  be  done  away  with,  the  General  Free  Christian  Council  in  Germany 
was  asked  for." 

'-  This  combination  of  democracy  and  fanaticism,  in  which  Zwingli,  as  well 
as  Miintzer  had  a  hand,  and  which  had  been  stimulated  by  Luther's  powerful 
writings  in  behalf  of  individual  liberty  and  the  universal  priesthood,  still 
further  Impelled  Luther,  though  he  was  a  peasant's  son,  to  side  permanently 
with  the  established  order  of  the  princes,  and  to  look  ever  afterward  with 
distrust  on  democracy  and  "  the  common  man."  The  Peasants'  War  must 
not  be  forgotten   in  Luther's  general  view  of  Zwingli's  life  and  character. 

"  The  Lutheran  party  called  into  being  to  offset  the  Catholic  Federation 
(i.  €.,  "The  Swabian  League,  which  persecuted  the  Lutherans  and  their 
pastors  in  South  Germany  ")  was  composed  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse,  the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  his  brother  Albert,  Dukes  Otto 
Ernest  and  Francis  of  Brunswick-Liineberg,   and  the  Counts  of  Mansfeld. 


293         TEE    LUTHERAN    COXFE    SIGNS. 

and  they  gained  a  great  victory  as  fo]lo\A  :  The  Word  of 
God  was  to  be  preached  without  disturbance,  indemnity  was 
to  be  granted  for  past  offences  against  the  edict  of  Worms, 
and  until  a  General  Council  met  in  a  German  city,  eacli 
State  should  so  live  as  it  hoped  to  answer  for  its  conduct  to 
God  and  the  Emperor."  The  Protestant  princes  and  cities 
interpreted  this  resolution  as  conferring  upon  them  the  legal 
right  to  reorganize  territorial  churches,  and  to  reform  the 
worship  to  accord  with  their  evangelical  faith.  Within  the 
next  three  years  all  Xorth  Germany  "  became  Protestant. 

But  when  the  Diet  met  again  at  Speyer  in  1529,  the  Pack 
conspiracy  and  the  mistakes  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  together 
with  the  coming  reunion  of  Pope  and  Emperor,  placed  the 
Romanists  in  a  large  majority.  The  clerical  princes  Avho 
up  to  this  time  had  chimed  in  with  the  evangelical  com- 
plaints, because  of  the  pretensions  of  the  Papal  Chair,  now, 
since  they  saw  that  the  conflict  had  turned  into  one  that 
involved  their  own  existence,  stood,  with  ranks  closed,  en- 
tirely on  the  side  of  the  Pope,  and  had  come  to  the  Diet  of 
Worms  in  great  numbers,  under  cajiable  leaders,  to  decide 
this  matter.  The  political  princes,  even  those  who  hitherto 
had  not  been  enemies  of  the  Reformation  because  of  aversion 
to  the  clericals,  now  realized  that  the  new  teaching  had 
made  sufficient  inroad  into  the  rej)ute  and  the  power  of  the 
clericals,  and  since  the  matter  was  threatening  to  assume  a 
political  complexion,  linked  themselves  closely  with  the  cler- 
icals and  zealous  defenders  of  the  old  state  of  affairs.  In 
addition  to  all  this,  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  were  now 
reconciled  to  each  other,  and  combined  to  gain  the  victory 
over  their  opponents. 

The  Lutheran  minority  stood  weak  and  discredited,  ami 
the  imperial  commissioners  were  able  to  abolish  the  ordi- 


"  Thus  was  the  territorial   system  given  legitimacy. 

■"  Except   Ducal    Saxony,    Brandenburg,    and    Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel. 

The  Lutheran  faith  was  introduced  into  Sweden  in  1527.  "  But  in  Sweden, 
the  religion,  as  Luther  brought  it  forth  out  of  God's  Word,  was  introduced  by 
King  Gustave,  and  in  Denmark  by  King  Frederick  I." — Cyprian,  p.   35. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.     293 

dance  of  1526,  which  granted  the  Lutherans  a  right  to  found 
territorial  churches,  and  to  take  measures  to  restore  tlie 
Roman  rule.  Ferdinand  was  able  to  tell  the  Evangelicals, 
''All  is  over.  Submission  is  the  only  thing  that  remain^." 
At  this  fateful  instant,  upon  which  the  existence  of  the  Evan- 
gelical cause  depended,  the  Evangelical  Estates  withdrew  for 
consultation,  praying  a  few  moments'  grace.  But  King 
Eerdinand  and  the  Imperial  Commissaries  departed  from 
the  assembly.  Shortly  thereafter  the  Evangelicals  returned 
and  read  their  protest  before  the  Estates  still  assembled. 
This  was  the  celebrated  Protest  at  Spires  (April  19th, 
1529).  The  Protesting  Estates  would  abide  by  the  recess 
of  1520,  for  that  of  1529  was  not  binding  because  they  were 
not  consenting  parties.  If  forced  to  choose  between  obe- 
dience to  God  and  obedience  to  the  Emperor,  they  would 
choose  to  obey  God,  They  appealed  from  this  Diet  to  the 
Emperor,  to  the  next  free  General  Council  of  Christendom, 
or  to  an  asseinhly  of  the  German  nation.^^  The  Protest  was 
signed  by  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony,  Margrave  George  of 
Brandenburg,  Dukes  Ernest  and  Francis  of  Brunswick-Liine- 
burg,  Landgrave  Philip  of  Ilesse,  Prince  Wolfgang  of  An- 
halt,  and  fourteen  cities,  a  number  of  them  Zwinglian. 

SALIG  ON   THE   PROTEST. 

This  Protestation  conferred  upon  the  Evangelical  Estates  the  name  of 
Protestants,  which  they  hold  to-day  yet.  This  name  is  a  historical  monument 
whose  memory  the  Lutheran  Church  will  never  allow  to  grow  old.  The  Protest 
was  a  precursor  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  preparing  the  way  to  a  fearless  con- 
fession, and  clearing  the  path  of  hindrances  which  otherwise  would  have  sprung 
up  in  great  numbers.  It  confirmed  the  name  "Steadfast"  for  the  dear  Elector 
John,  and  cost  the  excellent  Electoral-prince  John  Frederick  many  a  sigh  and 
care.  It  was  he  who  encouraged  his  steadfast  father  in  many  hearty  letters  to  con- 
fess the  truth  unabashed,  and  not  to  permit  himself  to  be  led  away  from  it. — Hist, 
d.  Aiigsp.  Con/.,  II,  134-135. 


"  Affected  by  the  withdrawal  of  Ferdinand,  and  the  Injury  thus  done  to  their 
honor  and  their  rights,  they  seized  upon  the  legal  measure  of  an  Appellation, 
which,  attested  by  a  notary  and  witnesses,  they  addre.ssed  to  the  Emperor, 
to  the  promised  free  General  Council,  and  to  the  whole  German  Nation.  The 
Impression  created  was  a  profound  one. 


294         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS, 

These  men,  who  thus  protested  and  appealed,  both  on  the 
seventeenth  of  iVpril  after  the  writing  of  the  Decree,  and 
also  once  again  solemnly  and  formally  on  the  twenty-fifth 
before  the  Diet  and  every  C^hristian  judge,  to  the  majesty  of 
the  Emperor  and  a  free  Christian  Council,  did  not  believe 
that  tliey  were  bound  to  give  up  the  action  of  the  last  Diet 
of  Spires,  which  had  been  brought  about  as  with  one  mind 
and  heart  and  which  wrought  stability,  peace  and  unity. 
They  did  not  believe  that  the  majority  which  now  thought 
otherwise  and  which  now  desired  to  destroy  this  action, 
shoidd  be  permitted  to  put  their  faith  and  the  common  good 
in  peril.  Ferdinand  refused  to  incorporate  the  Protest  into 
the  Decree.  So  each  of  the  Princes  regarded  himself  re- 
sponsible for  making  it  known,  and  it  was  resolved  to  send 
an  announcement  of  it  to  the  Emperor  by  a  special  embassy. 


Luther's  Opinion  Concerning  the  Decree  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  as  to 
WHAT  Reasons  the  Elector  Should  Give  the  Emperor  for  Refusing  to 
Accept  the  Decree. 

April,  i^2g. 

1.  Your  electoral  Grace  would  go  against  your  own  conscience,  and  condemn 
the  doctrine  which  you  recognize  as  Christian. 

2.  You  would  become  a  participant  with  all  those  who  condemn  such  doctrine, 
and  thus  in  addition  to  your  own  sin  would  load  upon  you  numberless  horrible 
strange  sins. 

3.  Your  electoral  Grace  has  not  the  power  to  force  anyone  to  re-establish  the 
abuses  that  have  been  abolished,  just  as  you  were  not  the  beginner  or  the  cause  of 
their  disappearance,  since  this  is  a  matter  of  the  conscience  of  each  one. 

4.  Your  electoral  Grace  cannot  assent  that  the  abuses  should  again  be  estab- 
lished, for  then  you  would  be  confirming  the  unbearable  oppression  of  the  clergy  of 
which  the  complaint  was  at  Worms,  and  would  be  strengthening  the  very  abuses 
which  his  imperial  Majesty  himself  promised  to  abolish. 

5.  That  your  electoral  Grace  has  not  dealt  in  an  unchristian  way  can  be  seen  by 
his  imperial  Majesty  in  the  fact  that  the  estates  of  the  empire  have  not  condemned 
this  teaching,  but  have  postponed  it  to  a  Council,  which  they  would  not  have  done 
if  they  had  regarded  it  as  downright  unchristian. 

6.  And  since  all  the  estates  of  the  empire  are  awaiting  a  Council,  and  his  im- 
perial Majesty  has  also  encouraged  them  in  this,  may  his  imperial  Majesty  advise 
and  help,  that  Christian  peace  may  be  brought  about  in  a  right  and  orderly  way, 
and  that  the  matter  may  come  to  a  hearing,  and  may  not  be  condemned  in  private, 
which  would  be  a  forced,  and  not  hearty  and  willing  peace. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.     295 

The  worst  was  to  be  feared.  Xo  wonder  that  three  days 
after  the  reading  of  the  Protest,  the  Elector  of  Saxonv, 
Philip  of  Hesse,  and  the  cities  of  Strasburg,  Ulm  and  Xiirn- 
l)erg,  concluded  a  secret  treaty  of  nintual  defence,  in  case 
they  should  be  attacked  by  a  party  of  the  opposite  faith  or 
should  be  hindered  in  the  discharge  of  their  Christian  duties. 

In  this  Federation,  divergency  of  Protestant  doctrine  had, 
for  the  moment,  been  overlooked.  Cities  such  as  Stras- 
burg, Constance,  Ulm,  and  the  towns  of  the  Swiss  were 
received  with  the  other  Protestants.  But  the  majority  of 
the  Lutheran  theologians  did  not  approve  of  the  Federation. 
Melanchthon  went  home  half  dead  with  worriment  concern- 
ing it.  He  told  Luther,  who  especially  was  opposed  to  the 
position  taken  as  to  a  Federation.  To  Luther's  thoroughly 
religious  disposition  the  Federation  seemed  a  human  business 
to  help  along  the  cause  of  God,  which  had  arisen  out  of  weak 
faith,  human  fear,  and  human  anger.  The  pure  work  of 
the  Gospel  should  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  calcu- 
lating prudence  of  an  anxious  political  diplomacy.  In  re- 
ligion God  should  be  left  to  rule  and  to  care.  How  could 
the  Elector  make  cause  with  those  who  did  not  believe  God's 
Word  as  to  the  Sacraments !  Though  he  had  been  moved  by 
the  sudden  danger  to  enter  into  Federation,  the  Elector,  on 
more  sober  thought,  doubted  the  wisdom  of  what  had  been 
done. 

The  representations  of  Luther  therefore  made  the  greatest 
impression  upon  the  Elector.  Similar  doubts  arose  in  the 
hearts  of  others,  and  when  the  matter  came  up  at  Rotachj 
at  the  meeting  agreed  on  already  at  Spires,  to  make  more 
definite  arrangements  concerning  the  Federation,  hesitant 
reserve  on  the  part  of  Saxony,  Xiirnberg  and  other  Luth- 
erans caused  the  deliberations  to  be  deferred  to  a  later  con- 
vention at  Schwabach,  which  then  was  entirely  given  up  by 
the  Lutherans. 


296         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Luther  Warns  the  Elector  of  a  New  Federation  which  He  is 
Said  to  have  Entered  Into  with  the  Landgrave. 

May  22nd,  J52(). 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  Most  gracious  Lord.  M.  Philippus  has  brought 
me  the  news  from  the  Diet  that  a  new  Federation  is  to  be  established  particularly 
by  the  Landgrave  of  llesse  with  certain  cities.  All  of  which  moves  me  not  a  little. 
For  I  was  severely  burned  last  year,  when  God  by  his  wondrous  grace  released  us 
from  the  dangerous  Federation.  And,  although  I  hope  God  will  continue  to  pre- 
serve us,  and  will  give  your  Grace  His  Spirit,  and  henceforth  to  keep  you  from  such 
and  similar  Federations  ;  I  have,  nevertheless,  because  of  the  earnestness  of  my 
conscience,  not  been  able  to  desist  from  writing  to  you,  since  one  cannot  be  too 
diligent  in  circumventing  the  devil.  The  Lord  grant  that,  although  the  Landgrave 
continues  with  his  making  of  Federations,  you  be  not  bound  and  fettered  in 
with  them  ;  for  we  cannot  even  conceive  of  the  trouble  that  would  follow  there- 
from. 

First  of  all,  this  is  certain,  that  such  a  Federation  does  not  come  from  God,  or 
from  trusting  in  God,  but  arises  from  human  wit,  and  seeks  human  help  alone,  all 
of  which  is  building  without  a  good  foundation.  Then  such  a  confederation  is  not 
necessary,  for  the  multitude  of  papists  has  neither  the  courage  nor  the  ability  to 
accomplish  anything  which  could  not  be  withstood  by  the  good  men  whom  God 
has  given  us. 

In  the  third  place,  our  Federation  will  not  accomplish  any  more  than  that  the 
opposite  party  will  be  incited  to  also  establish  a  Federation,  and  to  do  that  which 
perhaps  they  would  never  otherwise  have  attempted. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  must  remember  that  the  Landgrave,  after  establishing 
such  a  Federation,  inasmuch  as  he  is  a  restless  young  prince,  might  not  keep  the 
peace,  but,  as  happened  last  year,  might  find  causes  not  only  for  defense,  but  also 
for  offensive  attack  ;  and  it  certainly  is  not  God-like  to  assume  this  attitude  when 
no  one  is  seeking  to  attack  us. 

In  the  next  place,  and  this  is  the  worst  of  all,  such  a  Federation  will  consist  of 
mostly  those  who  strive  against  God  and  the  Sacrament,  and  we  all  shall  become 
y)articipants  of  their  blasphemy.  I  contend,  indeed,  that  no  more  dangerous  alli- 
ance could  be  undertaken.  If  there  is  no  other  way,  may  God  help  that  your 
«lectoral  Grace  part  from  the  Landgrave,  as  I  hear  the  Margrave  George  says  he 
will.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Who  has  helped  your  electoral  Grace,  up  to  this  time, 
against  the  Landgrave,  will  doubtless  continue  to  do  so. 

In  the  last  place  God  has  always  condemned  such  Federations  of  human  help 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  Isaiah  30  :  15  says:  "  In  quietness  and  in  confidence 
shall  be  your  strength  ;"  for  we  are  to  be  children  of  faith  toward  God.  The 
Landgrave,  who  already  has  made  such  a  great  mistake,  is  not  to  be  trusted, 
especially  because  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  change  in  him,  nor  has  he  experi- 
enced any  repentance  or  .sorrow  for  his  .sin. 

May  the  Lord  preserve  you  from  all  attempts  of  the  devil. 
Your  obedient 

MARTIN  LUTHER. 
Wittenberg,  May  22nd,  1529. 


PROVIDEXCE   AXD    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     397 

The  only  one  on  the  side  of  the  Lutherans  who  was  par- 
ticularly pained  by  this  failure  of  the  Evangelicals  to  federate 
was  the  Landgrave  Philip  himself.  He  had  set  great  hope 
upon  the  strength  of  tlie  Federation,  and  upon  the  help  of 
the  Swiss.  Great  visions  of  future  success  arose  in  his  mind, 
and  now  all  this  was  to  be  shattered  because  of  a  mere  unim- 
portant doctrinal  condition !  A  bold  thought  occurred  to  him. 
He  would  himself  do  away  with  the  difficulty.  He  would 
invite  both  parties  to  a  colloquy  at  ]\[arburg.  The  Swiss 
theologians  gladly  accepted  his  invitation.  The  Saxons  strove 
against  it.  They,  especially  Luther,  did  not  see  that  it 
would  bring  any  result. 


MELAXCHTHON  AGAINST  THE  COLLOQUY  AT  MARBURG, 

To  iHK  Elector. 
C.R.,I,1066. 

May  /////,  /J^p. 

To  deal  with  Zwingli  is  entirely  useless.  .  .  .  If  he  has  been  summoned, 
it  is  not  to  be  hoped  that  he  would  come.  The  others  who  dance  to  Zwingli's 
music  would  probably  be  timid.  ...  I  rest  assured  that  I  will  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Strasburgers  as  long  as  I  live,  and  I  know  that  Zwingli  and  his 
associates  are  mistaken  on  the  Sacrament. 


Luther  (Probably  to  the  Elector)  on  the  Colloquy  at  Marburg. 

J/aie,  I52g. 

So  far  as  my  own  person  is  concerned,  I  have  no  aversion  to  speaking  with 
Oecolampadius  of  the  sacrament,  and  have  not  declined  to  do  so  to  the  Land- 
grave ;  and  I  wish  to  God  it  might  be  a  serviceable  thing.  For  this  matter  is 
not  insignificant.  They  have  a  large  following  of  such  as  are  regarded  as  learned 
in  all  Germany,  for  reasons  that  I  understand.  Vet  they  are  wanting  in  one 
thing,  which  they  do  not  yet  know,  namely,  how  difficult  it  is  to  stand  before 
God,  without  God's  Word.  Their  way  of  dealing  is  that  of  mere  earthly  wit  and 
brilliant  frivolity. 

To  deal  with  Zwingli  would  be  unfruitful.  Therefore  Oecolampadius  is  to  be 
asked  to  come;  and  if  he  has  been  asked,  it  is  nevertheless  not  to  be  hoped  that 
he  will  come.  ...  It  is  not  well  that  the  Landgrave  mingles  with  those  Zwing- 
lians.  I  believe  that  he  already  has  more  pleasure  in  them  than  is  good  :  for  they 
are  keen  and  shrewd  people,  such  as  the  Landgrave  likes. 


298         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  the  Landgrave  was  not  satisfied.  He  insisted  on  his 
plan,  and  addressed  a  letter  to  Luther,  to  which  Luther 
replied : 

Luther  to  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

r 
/line  fjl/i,  /S^9- 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ. 

Illustrious  Prince  !  I  have  obediently  received  your  letter  and  gracious  desire 
that  I  should  go  to  Marburg,  to  have  a  discussion  with  Oecolampadius  and  his 
people  concerning  the  dissension  as  to  the  Sacrament,  so  that  God  might  give 
peace  and  unity. 

Although  I  have  poor  hopes  of  such  peace,  yet  your  diligence  and  concern  are 
praiseworthy,  and  I  am  willing,  for  my  part,  to  undertake  such  a  forlorn  and  per- 
haps dangerous  service  ;  for  I  do  not  wish  the  other  side  to  be  able  to  say  that 
they  are  more  inclined  to  peace  and  unity  than  I. 

If  they  really  desired  to  seek  peace,  as  they  declare,  they  might  have  addressed 
us  long  ago  in  writing.  I  know  very  well,  that  I  shall  not  yield  to  them  at  all, 
and  cannot  do  so.  I  am  positively  sure  that  they  are  in  error,  and  that,  in  addi- 
tion, they  are  not  certain  concerning  their  own  opinion  ;  for  I  have  thoroughly 
investigated  their  whole  ground  in  this  affair.  They  also,  doubtless,  have  seen 
my  ground.  Therefore  it  is  my  earnest  prayer  that  you  consider  thoroughly 
•whether  the  final  result  will  do  more  good  or  more  harm.  For  this  is  sure  that, 
if  they  do  not  yield,  we  shall  part  from  one  another  fruitlessly,  and  shall  have  come 
together  in  vain  ;  your  Grace's  gifts  and  pains  will  have  been  lost ;  and  they  will 
not  be  able  to  restrain  themselves  from  boasting,  as  they  have  been  accustomed  to 
do  hitherto,  and  from  slandering  us,  so  that  we  shall  be  pressed  anew  to  defend 
ourselves.     Then  matters  will  be  worse  than  now.     This  is  what  Satan  wishes  and 

seeks. 

Willing, 

Wittenberg,  June  23rd,  1529.  Martin  Luther. 

The  date  of  the  Rotach  convention,  at  whieli  final  arrange- 
ments were  to  be  made  concerning  the  Federation,  was  only 
a  few  days  ofi",  and  Luther  prepared  a  decisive  Opinion  for 
this  convention. 

LUTHER     AGAINST     FEDERATIONS. 

Opinion  for  the  Rotach  Convention. 

June  28th,  1529- 

First.  Federation  is  impossible.  For  it  must  ground  itself  on  the  conscience  or 
faith  of  those  who  bind  themselves  to  believe  with  one  heart.  But  we  do  not  find 
such  faith  in  the  other  party,  and  it  certainly  will  be  wrought  in  but  few.      And  if 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.     2:J9 

the  Emperor  should  really  make  an  attack  at  any  spot,  there  would  be  very  few  to 
stand  steadfast,  and  the  rest  would  desert  us.  Too  late  we  should  learn  that  the 
cities,  in  themselves,  are  powerless,  and  the  Federation  would  go  to  pieces  in  dis- 
grace. Of  this  we  have  had  examples  enough  in  Muelhausen,  Nordhausen,  Erfurt, 
Augsburg,  Niirnberg,  Swabian  Hall,  etc.  These  at  first  really  seemed  to  wish 
to  eat  the  Gospel  from  very  love,  but  now  have  fallen  away  from  it.  It  is  to  be 
feared  that  the  same  would  V)e  the  case  with  Ulm,  Strasburg,  etc.  There  are 
many  in  these  cities  who  are  hostile  to  the  Gospel. 

Federation  is  also  hazardous  on  account  of  the  Landgrave,  because  he  is  a  rest- 
less man.  He  might,  as  he  did  the  other  time,  become  dangerous,  and  might 
storm  monasteries  without  our  consent.  Yet  afterward  we  would  be  bound  by 
what  he  had  done,  or  would  be  regarded  as  having  co-operated  with  him.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  cities  of  Basel  and  Strasburg,  who  have  taken  possession 
of  the  "  Chapter  "  by  their  own  power.  In  all  this  we  would  be  regarded  as  par- 
ticipating, and  would  be  obliged  to  defend  it.   This  is  contrary  to  God  (Matt.  4  :  7). 

In  the  third  place,  such  a  Federation  will  be  a  dubious  and  vexatious  matter. 
For  who  can  prevent  so  many  people  from  seeking  a  brachium  carnis,  /.  f.,  more 
support  in  human  help  than  in  God,  and  although  two  of  three  should  be  pure, 
the  rest  would  set  up  the  Federation  as  their  idol. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  is  unchristian,  because  of  the  heresy  concerning  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  for  we  should  have  to  uphold  and  defend  this  heresy  ;  and  if  we  would  not 
defend  it,  they  would  probably  become  more  angry  than  before.  For  as  they  are 
not  changing  their  faith  on  this  point,  there  is  no  hope  that  they  will  remain  true 
and  steadfast  in  the  other  points. 

Suppose  someone  would  say  that  the  cities  are  in  unity  with  us  in  all  points 
but  one,  and  that  surely  everything  does  not  turn  on  this  or  that  one  thing.  I 
would  answer  :  He  is  no  less  an  unchristian  who  denies  one  article,  than  Arius,  or 
one  of  his  kind.  Moreover,  the  other  party  itself  seems  exceedingly  concerned  in 
respect  to  this  one  "  small  point ;"  for,  though  it  is  not  necessary,  they  are  strip- 
ping the  Sacrament  of  all  ceremonies,  and  making  of  it  a  simple  collation,  which 
we  certainly  cannot,  forbearingly,  be  responsible  for. 

If  another  man  should  say,  "  This  Federation  does  not  concern  the  doctrine, 
but  is  a  matter  of  external  force,"  I  would  answer:  Such  a  statement  will  not 
hold,  for  everyone  knows  that  the  opposite  party  desires  to  attack  us  for  no  other 
reason  than  because  of  the  doctrine. 


What  is  to  be  Written  to  the  Emperor  .' 

First  of  all,  it  would  be  well  if  our  people  would  write,  for  themselves  alone, 
without  Zwingli.  And  that  the  valuable  services  of  our  Elector  to  the  Church  and 
the  whole  Empire  be  made  clear,  it  should  be  said  : — 

1.  That  he  has  taught  Christ  and  His  Word  most  purely,  as  it  has  not  been 
taught  for  a  thousand  years.  That  many  abuses  have  been  removed,  such  as  have 
injured  the  Church  and  the  common  life,  viz.,  traffic  in  the  masses,  misuses  of  indul- 
gences and  tyranny  of  the  ban,  which  even  the  other  party  itself  demanded  at 
Worms  that  they  be  done  away  with. 


300         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

2.  That  he  has  withstood  the  destroyers  of  pictures  and  Churches. 

3.  That  the  value  of  civil  authority  and  of  his  Imperial  Majesty  has  been  brought 
out  more  clearly  than  has  been  the  case  for  many  hundreds  of  years. 

4.  That  against  the  seditious  Miinzer-mobs,  and  in  behalf  of  the  common  peace, 
we  have  done  the  most  for  the  Emperor. 

5.  That  no  one  has  undertaken  the  defence  of  the  Church  against  the  Sacramen- 
tarians  except  us.     The  Papists  were  too  weak. 

6.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Anabaptists. 

7.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  deadly  seed  of  other  hurtful  doctrines  dissem- 
inated by  these  people  concerning  the  Trinity,  Faith  in  Christ  and  the  like. 

In  this  remarkable  summary  by  Luther  as  to  what  was  to 
be  presented  to  the  Emperor  (perhaps  by  the  embassy  that 
bore  the  "Protest"),  we  see  the  germs  of  the  Electoral 
Apology  (compare  the  Preface  of  the  Apology  sent  to  ISTlirn- 
berg  on  June  3rd,  1530),  which  gradually  was  transformed 
into  the  Augsburg  Confession,  The  responsible  figure  and 
public  representative  of  the  whole  Evangelical  cause  was  a 
layman,  the  Elector  of  Saxony;  and  we  shall  interrupt  the 
course  of  events  at  this  point  to  gaze  for  a  moment  on  this 
sober,  steadfast  and  God-fearing  prince,  who  confessed  in 
deeds  what  Luther  taught  in  words,  and  to  whom,  next  to 
Luther,  we  owe  the  Evangelical  Confession  made  at  Augs- 
burg. 

The  Electok  of  Saxoxy. 

The  responsibility  in  the  nation  for  the  existence  of  Luth- 
eranism,  and  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  German  churches 
to  the  evangelical  faith  and  life,  and  for  the  acceptance  of 
a  formal  dividing  line  by  the  Protest  in  1529,  rested  upon 
the    Elector/     His    brilliant,    mercurial,    and    erratic    anti- 


"  John,  "  the  Constant,"  was  born  on  the  30th  of  June,  146S,  and  reigned 
from  1525  to  1532.  He  was  over  fifty  year.s  of  age  when  the  battle  of  the 
Reformation  began,  but  his  earnest  and  receptive  disposition  caused  him  to 
attach  himself  to  the  Evangelical  Confession.  He  prized  Luther's  sermon-s, 
and  often  made  a  copy  of  them   for  himself. 

The  seven  years  of  his  rule  were  years  of  growing  intensity,  and  of  recip- 
rocal lack  of  confidence  on  the  part  of  the  different  parties  in  Germany ; 
In  which,  nevertheless,  external  union  was  preserved,  and  the  Reformation 
progressed  without  hindrance,  to  which  John's  love  of  peace  and  his  firmness 
contributed  materially. 

John's  grasp  of  the  Evangelical  faith  was  independent  and  accurate,  and 
lie    had    the    undaunted    courage    to    defend    it    with    property    and    life.      His 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.    301 

thesis,  Philip  of  Hesse,  to  whose  youth  he  opposed  the 
weight  of  age,  to  whose  militant  aggressiveness  he  opposed  a 
settled  peace;  to  whose  hiniian  plans  and  restless  activity,  he 
opposed  a  trustful  faith  and  a  deep  spirituality;  and  to 
whose  desire  for  union,  and  for  conquest,  he  opposed  a  plain 
and  simple  obedience  to  the  ^^'ord  of  God, — offered  a  type 
of  Protestantism,  which,  if  it  had  triumphed  at  Rotach  and 
Marburg  and  Soliwabach  and  Augsburg,  would  have  fought 
Pome  with  the  weapons  of  Pome,  and  not  solely  with  the 
Word ;  and  attacked  this  world  with  the  weapons  of  this 
world ;  and  would  have  altered  the  whole  history  of  our 
evangelical  Protestantism.  Under  the  stern  and  terrible  ne- 
cessity of  giving  answer  for  itself  to  those  without,  these 
crucial  days  of  1529  were  deciding  whether  the  Word  alone, 
or  also  the  world  and  its  policies,  should  prevail  within  the 
Evangelical  movement. 

And  here  the  Elector  stood  with  Luther.  Melanchthon  and 
the  other  theologians  also  stood  with  Luther.  And  the  Elec- 
tor decided  to  be  true  to  his  faith,  and  to  give  answer  to  the 
Emperor  without  Federation  with  the  Zwinglians.  In  all 
the  efforts  of  Philip  of  Ilesse,  that  Summer  and  Fall,  the 
Elector's  attitude  seems  to  have  been  passive ;  and  he  went 
to  Augshurg,  as  we  shall  see,  on  his  own  responsibility. 

Up  to  this  time,  the  Elector  had  accomplished  great  things 
for  the  Church  and  the  faith.  Xot  only  had  he,  with  his 
brother  Frederick,  shielded  Luther  from  the  ban  of  the 
Empire  for  ten  long  years,  but  by  the  action  culminating  in 
the  Diet  of  1526,  which  made  reconstruction  possible,  and 
which  had  been  carried  into  effect  in  his  own  and  other 


Chancellor,  Briick,  was  the  soul  of  his  external  and  internal  policies,  and  John 
gave  his  theologians  a  leading  place  in  his  decisions.  He  held  Luther  in 
particularly   high   esteem. 

Luther  honored  him  as  "  a  pious,  upright  prince  who  has  no  bitterness  at 
all,"  whose  "  trust  in  God  was  so  earnest  that  he  remained  an  uncorrupted 
man."  Luther  said  of  him  that  "  Sincerity  died  with  John,  and  Wisdom  with 
his  brother  Frederick." 

Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  227,  characterizes  him  thus :  "  The 
Elector  John,  justly  styled  the  Constant,  with  all  his  loyalty  to  the  Em- 
peror and  wish  for  the  peace  of  Germany,  refused  to  compromise  his  con- 
science, and,  in  full  view  of  the  possible  ruin  of  his  earthly  interest,  he 
resolved  to   stand  by  '  the   imperishable  Word  of  God.'  " 

23 


302         THE    LUTHER  AX    CONFESS  IONS. 

domains  for  three  j-ears  now,  he  had  freed  the  Church  and 
established  it  in  the  pure  Word  throughout  I^ortheru  Ger- 
many. 

The  ecclesiastical  question  had  ceased  to  be  a  matter  of 
one  poor  monk,  notably  since  1526,  when  the  princes  for- 
mally assumed  responsibility  for  the  religion  and  the 
churches  within  their  territory.  The  responsibility  of  Luther 
at  Worms  in  1521  was  so  evidently  shifted  upon  the  Elector 
and  his  estate  that,  in  the  Call  to  the  Diet  of  iVugsburg,  the 
name  of  Luther  was  not  even  mentioned ;  and,  so  far  as  the 
purposes  of  the  Diet  were  concerned,  neither  Luther,  nor 
Melanchthon,  nor  any  of  the  theologians,  assumed  a  leading 
position,  but  were  mere  personal  advisers  to  the  Elector  on 
such  points  of  doctrine  and  ecclesiastical  life  concerning 
which  he  chose  to  consult  them.  As  the  official  leader  of 
the  old  Eoman  empire  in  Germany,  and  its  chief  marshal, 
the  Call  to  Augsburg  was  sent  to  him. 

Thus  the  Diet,  even  in  its  religious  aspects,  was  a  matter 
of  the  Princes  and  not  of  the  theologians ;  and  as  the  Elector 
was  the  central  and  deciding  one  among  the  Princes,  the 
wdiole  weight  fell  upon  his  shoulders. 

Soon  to  be  impressed  with  the  apparently  marvelous 
change  in  the  manner  of  the  Emperor,  realizing  the  common 
danger  at  hand  in  the  approach  of  the  Turk,  distrusting  the 
aggressiveness  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  and  inferring  from  the 
Emperor's  attitude  that,  if  he  would  be  dealt  with  favor- 
ably, it  was  necessary  to  eschew  the  radicalism  of  his  more 
offensive  associates  and  keep  himself  apart  from  their  de- 
sires for  alliance;  hoping,  doubtless,  to  show  to  the  more 
favorable  judgment  of  the  Emperor  that  the  Evangelical 
movement,  despite  the  Protest,  was  a  temporary  and,  until 
the  convening  of  a  General  Council,  not  a  real  separa- 
tion from  tlie  Church  Catholic  nor  necessarily  a  final  one 
from  Rome ;  with  the  stirring  events  of  only  nine  months  ago 
in  mind, — the  appeal  then  made  to  a  General  Council  or  to 
a  German  Assembly  of  the  nation  to  save  the  Evangelical 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     303 

Cliurcl)  from  ruin, — the  Elector  of  Saxony  received  the  Call 
of  the  Emperor,  so  sweetly  and  graciously  written,  to  the  new 
Diet  which  he  himself  would  attend,  and  where  all  opinions 
were  to  be  fairly  heard  and  all  divisions  in  the  Church  to  be 
honorably  settled,  that  there  might  be  one  Commonwealth  and 
one  Church  of  Christ,  even  as  there  was  one  Lord.  Thus 
the  Elector  went  to  Augsburg. 

What  the  Augsburg  Confession  finally  became,  it  became 
through  and  by  way  of,  and  as  representing  the  faith  of  the 
Elector,  though  his  personality  had,  in  the  Providence  of  God, 
been  eliminated  in  the  document,  and  the  other  princes  had 
been  admitted  as  joint-confessors.  "  It  is  to  John,  Elector  of 
Saxony,  more  than  to  any  other  prince,  that  the  world  is  in- 
debted for  the  Augsburg  Confession.  There  is  not  a  nobler 
prince  than  he  commemorated  on  the  pages  of  history 
(hardly  one  so  eminently  Christian).  His  exalted  firmness 
conferred  on  him  the  title  of  the  Constant,  and  never  was  it 
more  admirably  displayed  than  in  connection  with  the  Con- 
fession which  was  prepared  under  his  auspices  and  by  his 
command.  The  letter  patent  of  the  Emperor  summoning  a 
Diet  at  Augsburg  reached  him  in  Torgau."'* 


Having  gained  a  clear  conception  of  the  personalities  of 
the  Emperor  and  the  Elector,  and  of  the  course  of  history 
between  the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1521  and  the  Diet  of  Spires  in 
1529,  together  with  a  knowledge  of  the  Emperor's  Call  for 
a  Diet  at  Augsburg  in  1530,  it  will  now  be  necessary  to  take 
the  reader  somewhat  more  in  detail  through  the  pregnant 
events  of  1529  and  1530,  where  we  come  upon  some  surpris- 
ing facts. 

THE    YEAR    1529. 

April  19th,  1529. 

King  Ferdinand  declares  to  the  Princes:     "xVU  is  over. 


J«C.  p.  Krauth  in  Ev.  Rev.,  I,  p.  246. 


30 i    THE   LUTHERAN    CONFE^STONS. 

Submission  alone  remains  "  ;  and  the  Princes  and  Estates 
j^rotest. 

June  29  til. 


The  Peace  of  Barcelona  is  established  between  the  war- 
ring Emperor  and  Pope.  The  Emperor,  on  his  part,  prom- 
ises to  restore  the  Medici  to  Florence,  and  to  root  out  tJio 
Lutheran  doctrine. 

July  IMh. 

The  Emperor's  Warning  to  the  Estates. 

Mueller,  Hist.,  p.  208;  LUnig,  Reichs-Archiv,  part.  gen.  cont.,  II,  p.  329. 

July  I2th^  ^529' 

We  are  reminded  that  you  have  not  agreed  to  the  Decree  of  the  Diet  at  Spires 
on  account  of  the  Article  concerning  our  holy  Christian  Faith.  This  displeases  us 
with  you  not  a  little.  You  ought  not  have  refused  ;  and  since  it  is  the  old  custom 
that  in  a  general  Assembly  of  the  Empire  the  Majority  rules,  the  minority  should 
not  withstand  their  decision,  but  obey  it.  If  you  remain  in  further  disobedience  to 
this  gracious  warning,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  punish  you  in  earnest. 

Charles. 

August  9tli. 

Charles  lands  at  Genoa,  as  a  mighty  Conqueror,  with  a 
court  of  Spanish  grandees,  and  proceeds,  as  the  restorer  of 
peace  in  Italy,  after  full  preparations,  in  state  to  Bologna 
to  meet  the  Pope,  from  whom  he  expects  to  receive  the 
imperial  croAvn. 

The  Elector  John  in  Saxony  and  his  compeers  received 
early  tidings  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  at  Barcelona,  and 
the  question  was  at  once  raised  whether  the  Evangelical 
princes  and  estates  should  not  immediately  enter  into  a 
league  with  each  other  and  ^'proceed  against  the  Emperor 
with  their  military  forces  before  he  could  debouch  from  the 
Welsh  Mountains. 

''But  Dr.  Luther,  who  was  always  given  to  peace,  and  who 
continuously  advised  against  undertaking  war  under  the 
guise  of  the  Gospel,  and  had  already  several  times  persuaded 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    305 

those  who  were  ready  for  battle  to  desist,  then  dissuaded  the 
Evangelical  Princes  in  a  most  earnest  way  from  undertaking 
a  league  and  war  against  the  Emperor  in  this  matter  of 
religion.  He  commanded  them  to  wait  and  pray  God  in  firm 
faith  for  help  and  protection,  since  the  matter  belonged  to 
God,  and,  in  order  to  strengthen  his  faith  and  that  of  the 
Theologians  and  Princes,  he  gathered  a  number  of  comfort- 
ing passages  from  the  Scripture  and  published  them. 

"And  at  this  time  he  put  the  46th  Psalm,  '  God  is  our 
refuge  and  strength,'  etc.,  into  beautiful  melody  and  words, 
that  awaken  a  sad  and  troubled  disposition  and  fill  it  with 
courage,  and  had  them  frequently  sung  in  the  churches."" 

Dr.  Martin  Luther's  Letter  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  in  which  He 
Advises  Against  War. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  In  our  conscience  we  cannot  justify  nor  advise 
such  a  League  on  which  the  shedding  of  blood  might  result.  I  would  rather  be 
dead  ten  times  than  have  my  conscience  burdened  by  this,  that  our  Gospel  should 
be  the  cause  of  the  shedding  of  blood  or  of  injury. 

There  is  no  harm  in  your  being  obliged  to  be  surrounded  with  danger.  Our 
Lord  Christ  is  mighty  enough  to  ward  it  off",  and  we  also  believe  that  the  Em- 
peror's attitude  is  a  pure  threatening  of  the  devil,  that  will  be  without  power  and 
will  at  last  conduce  to  the  destruction  of  the  other  side. 

Therefore  I  admonish  you  to  be  comforted  and  unterrified  in  this  danger,  and  I 
will  pray  and  beseech  God  to  accomplish  more  than  they  can  do  with  all  their  vio- 
lence, only  so  that  we  keep  our  hands  free  from  blood  ;  and  if  it  came  to  the  worst 
(which  I  do  not  believe)  and  the  Emperor  insisted  on  demanding  me  or  the  others, 
I  will  appear  with  God's  help  on  my  own  behalf,  and  will  not  place  your  Grace  in 
danger.  Everyone  should  defend  his  faith  and  not  rely  upon  another.  Christ  our 
Lord  comfort  and  strengthen  you  richly.     Amen. 


Meantime  Protestant  affairs  were  fairly  blazing  in  Swit- 
zerland, with  King  Ferdinand  unable  to  keep  them  in  check ; 
and  soon  Charles  was  to  be  crowned  as  the  head  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  surrounded  by  the  pageantry  of  the  Span- 
ish Court,  and  without  any  notification  of  the  gi*eat  event 
or  any  invitation  to  attend  it  being  sent  to  the  great  German 


**Chytraeus,  Augsp.  Conf.,  p.  11. 


30(i         THE    L  U THEB A  N    C 0 N F E S S  J 0 N S . 

electors.     Thus,  for  the  last  time  in  history,  was  the  union  of 
the  spiritual  and  the  civil  hierarchy  consummated.'"' 

Tliis  coronation  of  Charles  at  the  hand  of  the  reluctant 
Roman  Pontiff,  and  without  the  presence  of  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  had  lifted  him  to  the  zenith  of  his  power.  "The 
sickly-looking  youth  of  Worms,"  according  to  the  brilliant 
picture  painted  of  him  by  Lindsay ,""  had  become  a  grave  man 
of  thirty,  whose  nine  years  of  unbroken  success  had  made 
him  the  most  commanding  figure  in  Europe.  He  had  quelled 
the  turbulant  Spaniards ;  he  had  crushed  his  brilliant  rival 
of  France  at  the  battle  of  Pavia ;  he  had  humbled  the  Pope, 
and  had  taught  his  Holiness  in  the  sack  of  Rome  the  danger 
of  defying  the  Head  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  He  had 
added  to  and  consolidated  the  family  possessions  of  the 
House  of  Hapsburg,  and  but  lately  his  brother,  Ferdinand, 
had  won,  in  name  at  least,  the  crowns  of  Bohemia  and  Hun- 
gary- 

October  1st. 

THE     MARBURG     COLLOQUY. 

Philip  of  Hesse  would  not  hear  to  the  policy  of  non- 
resistance,  and  bent  his  utmost  efforts  to  uniting  the  Luth- 
erans and  Zwinglians  into  one  Confederation.  The  Luther- 
an doctrine  was  the  chief  obstacle.  It  was  the  first  of  October 
before  Philip  succeeded  in  the  difficult  task  of  bringing  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  theologians  face  to  face  to  en- 
gage in  a  colloquy  in  his  own  castle  at  Marburg,  in  order  to 


-"  Seldom,  it  ever,  in  the  history  of  the  world  has  any  one  been  born  to  such 
weighty  responsibilities.  Columbus  had  been  discovering  for  Charles  terri- 
tories of  unlimited  extent.  When  he  was  fifteen  years  of  age,  the  first 
European  saw  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  ere  he  was  twenty  years  on  the  throne 
of  Spain,  Pizarro  had  completed  the  conquest  of  Peru.  It  was  the  heroic 
period  of  Spain,  when  religious  and  military  enthusiasm  elevated  the  national 
character  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  and  the  material  wealth  of  great 
countries  was  available  to  an  extent  which  has  seldom  been  surpassed. — 
Enc_i/c.    Britannica. 

^»  History    of    the    Reformat iott,    I.    p.    359. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.     a07 

attempt  to  harmonize  theological  differences,  in  view  of  the 
supposed  desperate  political  need  of  a  nnited  Protestantism. 

Odobe?-  Jfth. 

Luther  to  his  Wife. 

From  L.  Chr.  Mieg  Monum.  piet.  et  litter.  Francof.  1671. 
Walch  XXI,  299 ;  De  Wettelll,  512. 

October  ^th, 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  Dear  Lord  Kate.  Our  friendly  conference  at  Mar- 
burg is  at  an  end,  and  we  are  in  unity  in  nearly  all  things,  excepting  that  the  other 
side  wishes  to  retain  simply  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  to  confess  Christ  as 
spiritually  present  therein.  To-day  the  Landgrave  is  ascertaining  whether  we  can 
become  one,  or  at  least,  if  we  remain  separate,  nevertheless,  regard  ourselves  as 
brethren  and  members  of  Christ  among  each  other.  To  this  end  the  Landgrave  is 
strenuously  active.  But  we  do  not  want  the  "brethren  and  members'  business" 
(Aber  wir  wollen  des  Briideren  und  Glieders  nicht).  To  be  peaceful  and  well 
disposed  we  certainly  desire.  .  .  .  Tell  Herr  Pommer  that  the  best  argument  of 
Zwingli  has  been  that  the  body  cannot  exist  without  locality  ;  therefore  the  body 
of  Christ  is  not  in  the  bread.  The  best  argument  of  Oecolampadius  is,  that  this 
sacrament  is  a  sign  of  the  body  of  Christ.  I  believe  that  God  has  blinded  them  so 
that  they  might  not  be  able  to  advance  anything.  I  have  much  to  do  and  the  mes- 
senger is  in  haste.  Say  Good-night  to  all  and  pray  for  us.  We  are  all  fresh  and 
strong  and  live  like  princes.  Kiss  little  Lena  and  little  Hans  for  me.  On  the  day 
of  the  present  1529. 

Your  willing  servant, 

Martin  Lusher. 

John  Brenz,  Andreas  Osiander,  and  Dr.  Stephen,  of  Augsburg,  have  also  come 
hither. 

Letter  of  Luther  to  Agricola. 

Original  in  Wolf.,  Extv.  84.  18.  Bl.  3 ;  MS.  in  Cod.  Goth.,  B,  28,  f.  40b. 
Printed  in  De  Wette,  III,  p.  513 ;  in  Erlangen,  VII,  p.  168 ;  Buddeus,  p.  71. 

October  12th  is'29- 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  .  .  .  .  They  very  humbly  asked  for  peace.  We 
spoke  together  for  two  days.  I  answered  Oecolampadius  as  well  as  Zwingli,  and 
held  to  the  passage,  "  This  is  my  body."  I  disposed  of  every  objection.  These 
people  are  incompetent,  and  inexperienced  in  disputation.  Although  they  saw  that 
their  arguments  proved  nothing,  they  nevertheless  were  unwilling  to  yield,  espe- 
cially on  this  one  point,  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and,  I  believe,  more 
from  fear  and  shame  than  from  an  evil  disposition.  But  finally  they  yielded  on 
all  other  points,  as  is  to  be  seen  on  the  printed  report.  Then  at  last  they  prayed, 
or  requested,  that  we  should  at  least  regard  them  as  brethren,  and  said  that  the 
princes  would  like  to  see  this ;  but  it  was  not  possible  to  consent  to  it.  Neperthe- 


308         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

less  we  did  extend  to  than  the  hand  of  peace  atid  love,  that  now  bitter 
writings  and  words  may  cease,  and  everyone  may  hold  his  faith  without  hostile 
assaults,  yet  not  without  defence  and  confutation.  Thus  we  parted.  Pray  for  us. 
Amen  ! 

Martin  Luther, 
Jena,  October  12th,  1529. 

Postscript  by  Melanchthon. 
They  prayed  us  from  the  heart  that  we  would  call  them  brethren,  but  see  what 
folly  !  While  they  are  condemning  us  (verdammen),  they  still  wish  to  be  re- 
garded by  us  as  brethren  !  We  would  not  be  able  to  grant  them  this.  I  surely 
believe  that  if  the  matter  had  not  been  as  great,  they  would  not  now  begin  such 
a  farce. 

Luther  has  been  severely  blamed  for  refusing  the  proffer 
of  Zwingli,  but  from  his  standpoint  how  could  he  do  other- 
wise? It  has  been  cast  up  against  him  that  such  harshness 
was  a  result  of  his  personal  disposition.  But  in  the  letter 
translated  above,  Melanchthon  appears  to  be  even  more  harsh 
than  Luther.  Luther  was  neither  vexed  nor  narrow-minded, 
but  at  this  time  was  patient  and  in  good  temper. 

It  was  a  matter  of  principle  to  Luther.  The  sacrament  was 
the  central  mystery  of  his  faith ;  and,  after  it  had  been  robbed 
of  its  power,  and  emptied  of  the  divine  presence,  by  those 
on  the  other  side,  he  could  not  reach  across  the  gulf  thus 
created,  and  say,  "There  is  no  important  difference  between 
us."  The  hand  "of  peace  and  love"  which  he  did  really 
extend,  and  which  is  never  mentioned  in  most  modern  ac- 
counts, shows  either  how  ignorant  or  how  unjust  these  lat- 
ter are  in  attributing  the  position  taken  by  Luther  to  his 
bitterness  of  feeling. 

Luther  to  Landgrave  Philipp. 

Original  iu  Zurich  Archives  in  the  Unsch.  Nachr.  1756,  p.  447. 
DeWette,  V,  87  ;  Erl.Br.  W.,  Ill,  84. 

January  ^oth,  1535. 

I  have  gladly  perceived  the  great  diligence  you  have  used  toward  the  uniting 
of  us  all  in  the  article  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  ...  I  have  come  to  the  point  of 
confidently  believing  that  there  are  many  among  them  who  mean  it  with  a  true  and 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     309 

earnest  heart.  On  that  account  I  am  also  more  inclined  to  a  union  which  shall 
be  fundamental  and  stable.  But  since  not  everything  has  been  investigated  on 
both  sides,  in  my  opinion  it  is  enough  for  this  time  to  have  come  together  so 
near,  until  God  helps  us  more  and  grants  it  to  us  to  conclude  a  certain  union. 
Such  a  matter,  which  has  grown  so  long  and  so  deeply,  cannot  be  accomplished  sud- 
denly and  at  once.  For  what  I  can  ever  do  and  suffer  to  the  accomplishment  of 
such  a  beginning,  you  may  be  certain,  so  far  as  God  permits  me,  that  I  shall  not 
be  found  failing.     .     .     . 

Your  willing 

D.  Martin  Luther. 


Oct.   16th. 


THE  SEVENTEEN  SCHWABACH  ARTICLES   OF    LUTHER. 

The  object  of  the  Landgrave  failed,  and  now  more  than 
ever  tlie  Lutheran  princes  were  resolved  to  withdraw  from 
all  political  fellowship  with  the  others.  At  a  convention  of 
the  Lutherans  at  Schwabach  "^  in  October,  it  was  demanded 
as  a  fundamental  condition  of  being  received  into  the  Fed- 
eration, that  the  so-called  Schwabach  Articles,  framed  so  as 
to  render  it  impossible  for  those  who  denied  the  true  presence 
of  the  body  of  Ckrist  in  the  sacrament  to  sign  them,  must 
be  signed. 

Thus  the  Lutherans  stood  alone  when  a  new  situation  arose 
which  entirely  dissipated  every  idea  of  Federation.  The 
Emperor  had  received  the  embassy  (which  had  been  sent 
to  hand  him  the  Protest  and  Appeal  for  a  Council,  after 
the  Diet  of  Spires,  and  to  represent  to  him  the  necessity 
of  Protest,  and  at  the  same  time  to  assure  him  of  their  fidelity 
and  obedience)  very  ungraciously,  and  had  had  them  im- 
prisoned for  a  time.  Hence  the  question  would  now  arise, 
what  was  to  be  done  if  the  Emperor  himself  shoirld  use  force. 

For,  apparently,  no  one  had  considered  this  matter.  The 
Emperor  had  been  far  away  in  Spain  when  at  the  Diet  of 


^  The  convention  at  Schwabach  and  the  Colloquy  at  Marburg  have  the 
most  intimate  connection  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  furnish  a  clue 
for  guidance  into  the  same. — Salig,   Hist.   d.   Augsp.   Conf.,  U,   128. 


310         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Spires  the  liostile  attitude  of  the  Gcrnian  estates  had  caused 
the  Evangelicals  to  federate  against  the  hostile  estates.  As 
against  equals,  the  right  of  defence  was  supposed  to  be  pos- 
sessed. But  how  would  it  be,  if  now  the  Emperor,  their 
Lord,  who  meanwhile  had  come  to  Italy,  and  who  next  Spring 
would  be  expected  in  Germany,  would  range  himself  on  the 
side  of  the  enemies  ?     Dare  one  resist  him  ? 

There  was  hesitation  for  a  moment,  but  Luther  saw  nothing 
but  rebellion  and  destruction  in  the  attempt  to  oppose  the 
Emperor.  And  most  of  the  theologians  agreed  with  him. 
One  must  suffer  the  Emperor's  will,  even  if  he  acted  un- 
righteously. Country  and  people  must  remain  bound  to 
him  as  long  as  he  is  Emperor.  Only  in  one  case  could 
obedience  be  denied.  Should  he  wish  to  force  princes  and 
authorities  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the  Gospel,  it  would 
be  right  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  This  view  pre- 
vailed. The  princes  and  towns  that  were  already  resort- 
ing to  arms  for  a  defense,  laid  them  down.  They  raised 
themselves  to  the  high  point  of  courage  required  to  confess 
and  to  suffer  what  God  should  bring  to  pass.  Luther's  in- 
fluence was  supreme. 

Thus  Philip  of  Hesse's  grand  coalition  with  France  and 
Switzerland  against  the  Emperor  had  come  to  failure  through 
the  influence  of  Luther.  The  Elector  was  to  stand  before 
the  Emperor  by  himself,  and  not  to  federate  with  one  who 
differed  in  so  much  as  a  single  article  of  faith. 

The  Eall  of  the  year  was  full  of  thrilling  minor  incidents, 
each  bearing  on  one  of  the  two  great  problems.  The  theo- 
logical fruit  of  this  soul-searching  period  was  Luther's 
precious  Schwabach  Articles,  so  clear,  so  short,  so  simple,  so 
extraordinary  a  Confession  of  the  full  Evangelical  Gospel; 
the  political* fruit  Avas  the  impression  made  on  the  Emperor 
as  to  the  necessity  of  holding  either  a  Council  or  a  ^N'ational 
German  Assembly,  and  the  knowledge  given  him  of  the  deep- 
rooted  character  of  the  religious  question.. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGU^STANA.    311 

Oct.  lJ4h. 

APPEAL,     OF     THE     PROTESTANT     ESTATES     TO     A      CHRISTIAN 

COUNCIL. 

The  appeal  for  a  Christian  Council  caused  the  Emperor  to 
give  most  serious  attention  to  the  situation  that  would  con- 
front him  when  he  should  cross  over  into  Germany.  "  In 
order  to  fit  himself  better  for  this  important  business  he 
asked  certain  reliable,  learned  and  prominent  men  for  their 
opinions  of  the  religious  dissensions  that  had  occurred. 

"  Some  advised  him  not  to  allow  any  change  in  doctrine  or  in  ceremonies,  nor 
to  permit  any  Council  to  assemble,  but  to  suppress  with  force  all  preachers  and 
estates  who  wilfully  destroyed  the  common  peace  in  the  empire;  for  it  is  much  more 
harmful  to  permit  anything  new  to  exist  than  to  endure  that  which  might  perhaps 
be  made  better,  because  if  the  attempt  be  once  made  to  change  laws  and  customs, 
shallow  and  frivolous  people  would  only  be  incited  to  still  greater  and  more  pro- 
longed disputation  and  to  further  novel  views. 

"  But  others  answered  more  mildly.  Since  the  intention  is  to  uphold  God's 
honor,  and  not  only  peace  in  God's  churches  ;  and  since  evidently  many  unright- 
eous and  godless  opinions  have  forced  their  way  into  the  church  through  error, 
superstition,  and  avarice,  God's  honor  demands  that  such  errors  shall  be  done  away 
and  practical  doctrine  and  a  right  kind  of  worship  shall  be  ordained,  for  where  this 
does  not  occur,  no  permanent  peace  is  to  be  had  ;  for  as  there  will  always  be  some 
who  will  attack  errors  and  abuses,  this  will  become  all  the  more  uncontrollable  if 
it  occurs  without  the  pale  of  authority. 

"Therefore  it  is  proper  not  to  exercise  tyranny  over  the  churches  of  God,  but 
to  wrestle  with  the  difficulties  gently.  This  gentleness  to  the  churches  of  God 
is  all  the  more  proper  since  in  them  one  is  so  often  commanded  to  protect  the  weak. 
Last  of  all,  as  so  many  highly  respected  Princes  appeal  to  a  Council,  what  a  tyranny 
it  would  be  to  exercise  violence  and  cruelty  prior  to  an  investigation.  To  this  the 
examples  of  many  emperors  were  cited,  who  assembled  Councils,  such  as  Constan- 
tinus  the  Great,  Theodosius,  Arcadius,  Marcianus,  etc. 

"  The  Emperor  Charles,  gracious  by  nature,  opposed  to  all 
tyranny  and  devout,  when  he  read  both  proposals,  after  long 
consideration  and  communication  with  prominent  wise  men, 
finally  selected  the  right  and  the  mild  way  and  resolved  to 
abide  bv  it,"  "* 


^  Chytraaus,  Hist.  Auysp.  Conf.,  pp.  4b  sq. 


312         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
November  5th. 


CHAELES    V.    AXD   THE    POFE    AT    BOLOGNE. 

"When,  then,  in  the  year  1529,  on  the  5th  of  I^ovember, 
the  Emperor  came  to  Pope  Clement  toward  Bononia,  and 
when  certain  other  matters  had  been  attended  to,  the  de- 
liberation concerning  the  Lutheran  affair  and  how  again  to 
establish  peace  and  unity  in  the  Christian  churches  was 
taken  up. 

"  While  now  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  sat  together  in 
counsel,  and  while  there  stood  around  them  on  the  one  side, 
the  old,  wise  cardinals  Genutius,  Earnesius  and  others;  and 
on  the  other  side,  the  Spanish  and  Italian  Princes — the  Em- 
peror's Chancellor,  Mercurinus,  in  a  long,  well-thought-out 
and  earnest  oration,  indicated  the  Emperor's  will,  and  de- 
sired a  Council."  ^ 

THE  TLEA  OF  THE  CHAKCELI.OR  MERCURINUS, 

November  ^th,  1329,'^'' 

In  the  Assembly  of  the  Pope  and  Cardinals  and  in  the  Presence  of  the 
Emperor,  in  which  he  Begs  the  Pope,  in  the  Name  of  the  Emperor,  to 
Call  a  General  Council.'^* 

1.  Most  Holy  Father,  Most  Venerable  Lord  :  Ever  since  the  Invincible  Em- 
peror, at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  became  painfully  conscious  that  a  great  dissen- 
sion has  arisen  among  the  prominent  teachers  of  the  Church  and  is  increasing  from 
day  to  day,  he  cannot  but  notice  how  lamentable  injury  is  being  done,  and  many 
pious  souls  are  scandalized  ;  yea,  the  heat  of  controversy  has  grown  so  intense  that, 
if  no  one  conies  promptly  to  the  aid  of  Christianity  and  the  wretched  Roman  Empire, 
the  church  and  all  the  estates  in  the  Empire  will  be  placed  in  the  extremest  peril  : 
therefore  his  Imperial  Majesty  has  from  the  beginning  been  thoughtfully  striving  to 
find  some  means  to  restore  peace  to  the  Church  and  the  Empire,  now  swaying  in 
danger,  and  to  do  away  with  all  that  seems  to  antagonize  the  common  welfare. 

2.  Moreover,  his  Imperial  Majesty  well  knows  that  the  investigation  of  conflicts 

^*  Chytraus,   Hist.   Augsp.   Coiif.,  pp.    5b   sqq. 

^  The  date  is  that  given  by  Chytrceus. — Historia  Augsp.  Conf..  p.  4b.  Some 
place  it  at  the  end  of  February  of  the  following  year.     Vid.     I  3,  "  Coronation." 

^«  Colestin,  hist,  comit.,  1580,  I,  p.  10;  Muller,  Hist,  lib.,  Ill,  Cap.  2,  p. 
402  ;  Liinig,  oi'at.  prccer.  Europ.,  XXVII. 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.    313 

in  the  doctrine  and  usage  of  the  Church  are  the  province  of  your  Highness,  and  that 
as  an  old,  pious  and  prudent  man,  you  are  concerned  about  the  universal  corruption. 
Therefore  his  Majesty,  despite  the  Imperial  business  and  the  wars  in  which  he  has 
been  involved,  has  often  wished  and  prayed  God  that  he  might  meet  you  and  speak 
of  these  important  matters  and  compass  a  proper  conclusion. 

3.  Since  now  this  wish  has  been  realized,  and,  at  this  act  of  coronation  and  through 
his  proposed  journey  to  Germany,  an  opportunity  has  been  given  to  personally 
honor  your  Reverend  Holiness  and  to  enter  into  consultation  with  you,  his  Majesty 
renders  God  the  greatest  thanks  for  the  opportunity  afforded  ;  since  he  firmly  be- 
lieves that  Your  Holiness  will  find  a  way  in  this  venerable  assembly  to  remedy  the 
corruption  of  Christianity.  For  the  Emperor  is  assured  that  you  and  he,  the  two 
highest  heads  of  the  Church  and  the  State,  will  turn  their  care  to  the  upbuilding 
of  God's  honor  and  the  preservation  of  peace  ;  so  that  i/ie  right  and  whole- 
some doctrine  in  the  Church  may  be  preserved  pure  and  true  ;  that  where 
errors,  false  doctrines,  and  superstition  have  insinuated  themselves,  they  shall  be 
prevented  ;  that  lapsed  Church  discipline  shall  be  restored  ;  that  bad  morals  in  the 
clergy  and  among  the  people  shall  be  improved;  and  that  the  falsified  doctrine  of 
the  Church  shall  be  cleansed  and  purified.  In  connection  with  which  his  Majesty 
sincerely  believes  that  if  we  are  not  zealously  in  earnest  to  permit  a  book  of  instruc- 
tion to  be  compiled  from  the  Word  of  God,  for  healing  the  Church's  injury  and 
exercising  a  more  strict  discipline,  .still  greater  confusion,  and  more  abhorrent  barbar- 
ism than  we  have  ever  experienced  will  follow,  not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  the 
most  dreadful  and  righteous  penalties  will  be  visited  upon  those  in  authority  and 
those  who  are  under  it. 

4.  When  then  his  Majesty  began  to  deliberate  and  asked  the  advice  of  honorable 
and  intelligent  men,  they  could  find  no  more  useful  and  appropriate  remedy  than 
the  Diet  already  called,  in  which  the  conflicts  belonging  to  the  Church  should  be 
taken  up  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  decided  according  to  the  rule  attd  truth  of  the 
divine  Word ;  and  that  pious  and  learned  men  should  be  called  together  out  of 
all  nations,  and  be  given  the  free  assurance  of  safe  conduct  to  speak  openly, 
to  argue,  to  point  out  the  truth,  to  discuss  opinions  in  which  they  differ  from  each 
other  in  an  upright  way,  and  thus  fully  elucidate  the  sources  of  contention  ;  and 
finally  that  your  Papal  Holiness,  or  certain  qualified  and  impartial  judges,  see  to 
it  that,  after  a  thorough  investigation,  they  hold  firm  and  fast  to  that  which 
harmonizes  with  the  evangelical  teaching  and  with  invincible  truth  ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  condemn  harmful  errors  and  abuses  in  teaching,  luhich  are  iji 
conflict  zvith  the  Word  of  God,  and  either  bring  their  originators  into  the  right 
way,  where  possible,  or  give  them  over  to  the  proper  magistrate  for  punishment ; 
but  all  is  to  be  done  in  love,  and  not  with  force,  so  that  at  last  all  teachers 
and  hearers  shall  be  brought  to  a  true  adoration  and  service  of  God,  as  well  as  to 
obedience  to  the  Church,  and  to  believe  right  according  to  the  pattern  laid  down, 
to  teach  purely,  to  walk  irreproachably  and  to  glorify  God  in  this  way. 

Your  Imperial  Majesty  knows  that  your  Papal  Holiness  has  the  right  to  call 
together  councils,  and  that  the  conflicts  that  have  originated  in  the  Church  are 
subject  to  you  and  your  final  judgment ;  nevertheless  his  Majesty  seeks  all  the  less 
to  abridge  the  rights  of  the  Roman  chair  since  he  has  just  recently  promised  under 
oath  to  be  and  remain  a  friend  and  protector  of  the  same  ;  but  at  the  same  time  he 
realizes  that  pressing  necessity  is  at  hand,  that  the  universal  welfare  of  the  Church 


314         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

demands  it,  that  all  right-minded  people  wish  this  one  thing  with  great  desire,  and 
that  there  seems  to  be  no  other  way  which  is  right,  customary,  and  praiseworthy, 
by  which  the  respect  and  rights  of  your  Holiness  may  be  preserved,  the  declining 
Church  may  be  set  on  its  feet  again,  the  anxious  souls  of  the  pious  be  converted, 
and  the  truth  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  Christ  be  asserted,  than  by  the 
calling  together  of  such  an  assembly :  therefore  his  Imperial  Majesty  prays  Your 
Holiness,  for  Christ's  sake  and  for  the  general  welfare,  that  you  will,  as  early  as 
possible,  issue  a  call  for  a  Council  to  be  held  at  a  suitable  place,  and  believes  that 
this  method,  which  has  already  been  in  use  for  many  hundreds  of  years,  and  is 
appointed  by  God  and  the  Apostles  themselves,  is  as  necessary  as  useful,  since  such 
important  controversies  cannot  possibly  be  decided  by  the  verdict  of  one  or  another, 
or  only  a  few,  but  that  this  must  occur  in  a  free  assembly  of  the  leaders  and 
teachers. 

5.  Your  Imperial  Majesty  confesses  that  love  to  the  true  religion  and  the  ex- 
ample of  the  noblest  emperors  who  have  preceded  him  in  rule,  have  impelled  him 
to  this  step.  He  remembers  that  when  Arius  scattered  harmful  and  blasphemous 
errors,  Constantine  held  a  famous  Synod  at  Nicaea  to  investigate  and  condemn  the 
same,  and  brought  matters  so  far  that  the  proven  errors  were  publicly  condemned 
by  the  holy  bishops  and  the  holy  Church  fathers.  Also  that  the  Emperor  Theo- 
dosius  and  Valentinianus,  not  to  speak  of  others,  appointed  similar  great  assemblies  ; 
and  that  after  each  one  had  a  free  opportunity  of  speaking,  a  common  conclusion 
was  resolved  on,  and  the  errors  that  had  arisen  were  conde>nned  out  of  the 
Word  of  God,  and  the  originators  thereof  were  visited  with  severe  penalty.  It 
is  certain  that  such  conventions  and  deliberations  have  often  been  very  useful  to  the 
Church  of  God  and  the  whole  world,  and  that  one  has  never  been  able  to  investi- 
gate the  truth  to  better  advantage  than  through  proper  assemblies  ;  and  he  does  not 
see  how  in  our  times  the  peace  that  has  been  lost  can  be  restored  in  a  better  man- 
ner, since  the  use  of  force  in  this  affair  is  questionable. 

7.  Therefore  his  ISIajesty  hopes  that  your  Holiness  will  approve  his  prayer,  and 
first  of  all  by  this  mild  means  attempt  a  beginning  of  unification. 

8.  His  Majesty  also  solemnly  promises  that  he  will  ever  stand  by  Your  Holi- 
ness, and,  in  remembrance  of  his  oath,  will  be  a  true  and  perfect  defender  of  the 
apostolic  chair,  the  evangelical  truth,  and  all  the  subjects  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

Thus  closed  what  is  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  plea  for 
the  pure  Word  of  God,  the  unadulterated  faith,  the  evangeli- 
cal doctrine,  and  the  cause  of  religious  truth,  that  ever  came 
before  the  Roman  Curia  from  the  lips  of  the  representative 
of  an  imperial  sovereign. 

The  eloquent  man  to  whom  the  Pope  and  his  Cardinal 
were  obliged  to  give  audience  was  the  imperial  Chancellor, 
Mercurinus  Gattinara,  the  Emperor's  chief  adviser,  known 
by  the  \Yittenbergers  as  friendly  to  the  Lutheran  cause ;  and 
this  fact  may  have  contributed,  especially  with  Melanchthon, 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     315 

to  the  hopes  they  had  for  Augsburg.     But  let  the  reader  note 
that  Mercurinus  died  on  June  4th,  1530. 

After  Mercurinus  had  finished  his  plea  to  the  Pope  on 
that  Xovember  day  at  Bologne,  Pope  Clement,  '*  who  was  a 
wise  and  eloquent  man,  and  who  had  bethought  himself  con- 
cerning this  important  matter,  replied  thus : — "' 

The  Answer  of  Pope  Clement,  in  which  He  Declines  to  Call  a  Col'ncil. 

1.  We  do  indeed  believe,  Emperor  Charles,  that  you  are  pressing  for  a  Synod  in 
all  sincerity,  although  in  this  matter,  in  which  the  Church  is  in  great  danger,  the  chief 
responsibility  is  with  us  ;  for,  in  the  Council  of  Nicaea  it  was  decided  that  the  divi- 
sions which  arose  in  the  Western  Church  should  be  brought  before  the  Roman 
Bishop,  and  that  our  chair  should  call  the  assembly.  We  have  therefore  delib- 
erated as  to  whether  such  matters  should  be  dealt  with  in  a  Council,  or  whether 
the  men  should  be  seized  by  force  who  diverge  from  the  decrees  and  usual  opinions. 
Since  we  do  not  consider  it  advisable  to  call  a  Synod,  we  ask  you  here  at  the  begin- 
ning that  you  do  not  think  that  we  are  in  anxiety  for  the  stability  of  our  rule  or 
that  of  the  Roman  Church.  It  is  said  of  John  XXIII.  that  he  was  sorry  that  he 
had  held  a  Synod  at  Constance,  since  this  caused  his  downfall.  And  we  also 
have  recently  been  caught. 

We  positively  are  not  possessed  with  this  foolish  desire  to  hold  an  assembly. 
WTiat  has  been  decided  in  the  past  ought  not  to  be  robbed  of  its  power  by  a  new 
discussion.  If  such  a  discussion  were  truly  useful  to  peace  and  our  prosperity,  we 
would  not  hinder  it. 

4.  There  are  statements  of  doctrine  which  are  not  only  false  but  also  absurd, 
such  as  those  of  the  Anabaptists,  and  those  that  all  persons  should  hold  their 
possessions  in  common  ;  that  God  has  forbidden  public  law  and  punishment. 

5.  But  just  as  everyone  immediately  runs  to  a  fire  to  extinguish  it,  so  should  all 
the  civil  authorities  have  shown  themselves  eager  to  suppress  these  controversies  in 
their  very  beginning  ;  and  very  bad  consequences  would  follow  if  we  should  yet 
allow  disputation  over  them.  The  Emperor  Constantine  was  able  to  sit  in  the 
Council  and  hear  blasphemy.  Ought  you  be  regarded  as  being  as  abandoned  as 
Constantine  that  you  would  listen  to  such  deceitful  addresses  with  the  deepest 
confidence  ? 

6.  The  other  kind  of  error  consists  of  confused  teachings  which  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  solve.  It  is  much  better  that  these  should  never  come  up,  since  it  is  not 
possible  to  settle  the  conflicts.  To  this  kind  belong  questions  pertaining  to  the 
adoration  of  the  Bread,  of  the  Offering,  and  of  the  Mass. 

"After  the  Pope  had  thus  spoken,  the  Emperor,  inas- 
much as  he  determined  to  abide  by  his  opinion  and  desire  of 


"  Chytrseus,    Hist.    Augsp.    Cotif.,    pp.    6    sqq.  ;    Melanchthon,    declamat.,    V, 
pp.   94   sqq.      In   Nov,,   says   Chytr. ;   but   Mercurinus   indicates   Feb. 


316         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

a  Coiinci],  then  commanded  his  Chancellor  Mercurinus  to 
answer  the  Pope ;  but  when  Mercnrinus  had  begim,  the  Pope 
interrnpted  him  while  speaking,  and  said :  '  How  dare  you 
thus  rashly  oppose  me  and  stir  np  your  Lord  against  me  V 

"  Then  the  Emperor  himself  stood  up  to  answer  the  Pope. 
The  Princes  and  the  old  Cardinals  were  filled  with  wonder 
to  hear  what  the  young  Emperor  wished  to  say,  and  listened 
breathlessly.  And  this  *'  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  his 
speech : — 

The  Emperor's  Reply  to  the  Pope.^ 

*•  I  confess  that  I  am  young,  and  that  I  need  the  advice  of  this  Mercurinus  and 
other  sensible  and  wise  men,  and  I  recognize  that  I  ought  properly  to  hear  others 
who  are  of  better  understanding  than  I,  but  since  I  have  conferred  as  to  this  import- 
ant matter,  which  I  know  to  be  to  the  honor  of  God,  and  to  the  good  of  the  whole 
race,  with  many  wise  and  faithful  people,  I  regard  it  as  right  and  that  it  is  highly 
necessary  for  the  Christian  churches  that  a  Council  be  held,  for  you  know  yourself, 
Pope  Clement,  that  all  deserving  people  in  the  whole  of  Europe  are  requesting 
such  a  Council  with  continuous  petition,  one  that  will  be  ordered  and  ruled  in  a 
proper  and  Christian  manner. 

"Although  I  have  faithfully  weighed  the  arguments  which  you  have  just 
opposed  to  it,  I  have  nevertheless  come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  Council  shall  be 
called,  and  therefore  you  shall  know  that  what  was  said  by  my  Chancellor  was  said 
by  my  orders,  and  that  I,  so  long  as  I  live,  will  not  deviate  from  this  intention. 
Your  opinion  can  indeed  be  maintained  in  an  acceptable  and  respectable  way  by 
those  who  do  not  concern  themselves  much  concerning  God  and  the  churches.  But 
my  opinion  is  more  beneficial  for  the  churches ;  and  if  you  do  not  hinder  me,  I 
hope  it  shall  be,  with  the  help  of  God,  wholesome  for  all  Christendom. 

"  Neither  am  I  moved  to  deviate  from  my  opinion  by  your  hard  saying  that  one 
shall  not  allow  any  disputation  as  to  false  articles  or  those  that  are  in  conflict  with 
all  reason,  or  those  that  are  confused,  and  not  to  be  solved.  For  not  everything , 
concerning  which  the  battle  now  rages,  is  in  conflict  with  God^s  word  and 
reason.  There  are  in  the  Church  of  God  no  such  '  confused  questions '  concerning 
points  necessary  to  salvation  that  cannot  be  decided. 

"  I  have  often  quoted  the  saying  of  Plutarch,  as  one  must  permit  some  failings 
in  our  parents,  so,  in  government  and  religion,  one  must  be  patient  with  failings 
and  look  at  them  through  the  fingers  ;  but  this  has  its  limits. 

"  The  foundation  of  the  true  doctrine  must  indeed  be  preserved  unfal- 
sified.  But  certain  superstitious  and  blasphemous  adorations  have  crept  into  the 
churches.  Open  disorder  is  before  our  eyes,  and  a  Council  is  demanded  not  only 
for  the  doing  away  with  this  abuse,  but  stern  necessity  demands  that  a  well- 


^  Chytrseus,  Hist.    Augsp.   Conf.,  p.  8. 
**  lb.,  pp.  8  sqq. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.     317 

grounded  and  rightly  cotnposed  sninma  and  corpus  of  the  ivhole  Christian 
doctrine  be  drawn  up,  ivhich  shall  be  preached  and  taught  in  all  nations 
and  in  all  churches  with  one  voice,  for  you  know,  at  this  time  there  are  great 
objections  as  to  the  teaching  even  among  the  Roman  churches. 

"And  as  certain  evidently  false  doctrines  have  been  circulated,  the  Council 
should  oppose  them  by  clear  and  sure  arguments  and  by  the  testimony  of  Holy 
Scripture,  by  which  the  people  should  be  strengthened,  so  that  they  will  not  be  led 
astray  any  more. 

"  It  does  not  comport  with  you  as  a  Christian  Bishop  to  say  that  no  one  can 
be  brought  into  the  clear  concerning  certain  confused  articles.  For  God  has 
revealed  Himself  with  especial  grace,  and  if  His  doctrine  were  uncertain,  it  would 
not  be  divine. 

"  I  am  reminded  of  the  advice  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  who  allowed  the 
testimony  of  the  old  teachers  to  be  brought  to  light  in  a  Council,  for  I  gladly  listen 
to  the  Church  as  my  Mother  and  Teacher.  And  how  much  more  appropriate  your 
decision  will  be  if  given  in  a  Council  ;  for  there  will  be  much  greater  unity  among 
all  the  nations,  if  they  all  receive  this  with  unanimity.  After  a  proper  hearing,  I 
shall  also  not  be  found  wanting  as  to  my  oftlce  ;  and  that  the  hearing  may  occur  in  a 
proper  way,  after  the  example  of  the  old  Emperors,  I  will  be  present  myself,  and  as 
much  as  is  possible  see  to  it  that  this  honorable  old  law  shall  be  maintained,  that 
the  decision  shall  not  be  given  in  caprice,  but  explained  according  to  the  Law, 
namely,  according  to  the  doctrine  which  has  been  given  by  God  Himself. 

"But  what  you  now  demand,  namely,  that  I  shall,  without  any  previous  hear- 
ing and  investigation,  extirpate  both  the  good  and  the  bad  alike,  I  will  in  no  wise 
do.  For  /  will  not  abolish  the  judgment  of  the  churches  and  institute 
tyranny.  I  have  already  shown  my  Christian  humility  and  obedience  toward  the 
churches  and  toward  the  Roman  chair,  and  toward  you,  with  sufficient  clearness, 
and  will  continue  to  do  so." 


"When  the  Pope  and  all  the  Princes  present  heard  this 
address,  they  greatly  marveled  at  the  high  understanding  and 
the  wonderful  Christian  courage  of  Charles ;  and  on  that 
account,  that  he  might  not  be  agitated  more  violently,  the 
Pope  answered  quite  gently :  '  He  would  give  more  con- 
sideration to  the  matter,  and  take  it  into  further  deliberation 
with  his  Cardinals.' 

"  This  transaction  at  Bononia  is  sufficient  evidence  that 

the  Emperor  Charles    at  that  time  proceeded  with  the  great 

discretion  and  moderation  in  these  affairs  of  religion,  which 

he  also  subsequently  showed  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  that 

he  permitted  the  Confession  containing  the  teaching  of  our 

Churches  to  be  delivered  to  himself.     All  of  which  God  the 
24 


318         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Lord  so  ruled  that  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel  might  be  mani- 
fested more  clearly  and  spread  more  widely. 

"  But  the  Pope  at  the  same  time  at  once  perceived,  toward 
the  last,  there  at  Bononia,  that  the  Emperor  agreed  that  he 
would  first  of  all  proceed  mildly  with  the  Lutherans,  that 
they  miglit  again  be  brought  to  the  obedience  of  the  Romish 
churches.  But  if  they  should  be  obstinate  and  abide  in  their 
determined  disobedience,  he  would  suppress  them  with  force. 

^'  When  the  Pope  took  his  departure,  his  imperial  Ma- 
jesty, on  the  21st  of  January,  wrote  a  summons  in  very  mild 
and  gracious  words  for  a  Diet  to  convene  in  Augsburg  on  the 
8th  of  April.  In  this  he  expressly  said,  with  respect  to  the 
discord  in  religion,  that  he  would  hear,  consider  and  weigh 
every  deliverance,  opinion,  and  thought  of  each  estate  in  love, 
friendliness,  and  graciousness,  and  would  reduce  and  compose 
them  into  a  single  Christian  Truth.  Everything  tliat  had  not 
been  rightly  explained  on  either  part,  or  that  had  been  dealt 
with  wrongly,  would  be  abolished,  that  we  might  all  accept 
and  hold  a  single  and  true  religion,  as  we  are  all  under  one 
Christ  and  also  all  battle  in  one  communion  of  churches  and 
live  in  one  unity."  *" 

THE  YEAR   1530. 

Jan.  21sf. 


Charles  V.  issues  the  Call  convening  the  Diet  at  Augs- 
burg.     (This  document  appears  earlier  in  the  chapter.) 

Early  Spring. 

The  Emperor,  leaving  Bologna,  crosses  the  Brenner  Pass 
to  pay  the  visit  to  Germany  he  had  determined  on,  and 
by  his  personal  presence  to  put  an  end  to  the  Lutheran  diffi- 


3"  Thus    far    Chytrceus. 


rnoVlDKNCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    319 

culty  in  the  Church,  which  was  distracting  the  German 
portion  of  his  empire;  and  to  secure  the  imperial  succession 
for  Ferdinand  by  having  him  elected  King  of  the  Komans. 

THE    EMPEROn    HOLDS    COURT    AT    INNSBRUCK. 

Charles  was  welcomed  most  heartily  on  this  side  of  the 
Alps.  His  court  was  a  scene  of  brilliancy  and  power,  and 
was  visited  by  the  Roman  Catholic  princes  of  Germany ;  but 
the  Electoj',  the  chief  marshall  of  the  Empire,  was  con- 
spicuously absent. 

Under  this  stimulating  encouragement  from  part  of  Ger- 
many, Charles  could  afford  to  be  less  yielding  and  more  con- 
stant to  his  real  purpose  in  the  matter  of  religion,  than  he 
had  seemed  to  be,  in  the  Call,  a  few  months  earlier ;  and  the 
flatteries  and  persuasion  of  the  Romanists,  with  the  bluntness 
and  the  failures  of  the  Evangelicals  at  Innsbriick,  would  not 
render  the  newly-crowned  potentate  less  firm.  The  impres- 
sion of  his  power  made  by  the  Emperor  even  upon  Luther, 
is  seen  in  a  letter  he  wrote  to  the  Elector. 

End  of  February  or  Beginning  of  March. 

LUTHER   TO    THE    ELECTOR. 
Printed  by  Hans  Lufft,  Wittb.  IX,  543.    Pe  Wette,  III,  555 ;  Erl.  Br.  W.,  II,  134. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ.  The  world  is  running  so  quickly  to  its  end,  that  it 
strongly  occurs  to  me  as  though  the  last  day  would  break  in  before  it  is  possible 
for  me  to  completely  translate  the  Holy  Scripture  into  German.  For  this  is  certain 
that  we  have  nothing  of  a  more  temporal  character  to  await  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 
Everything  is  finished  and  fulfilled.  The  Roman  Empire  is  at  an  end  ;  the  Turk 
has  come  to  his  height  ;  the  splendor  of  the  Papacy  is  falling  away,  and  the  world 
is  getting  cracks  at  all  its  ends  as  though  it  would  soon  break  and  fall  to  pieces. 

That  this  same  Roman  Empire  has  risen  a  little  and  become  more  powerful 
under  our  Emperor  Charles  than  it  has  been  for  a  long  time  past,  it  seems  to  me  is 
the  last  act  of  God.  As  when  a  light  or  blade  of  straw,  when  burned  out  and 
about  to  be  extinguished,  suddenly  gives  out  a  large  flame  as  if  it  were  just  begin- 
ning to  burn  right,  and  then,  at  the  same  instant,  goes  out ;  such  to-day  is  the  case 
with  Christendom  and  the  bright  Gospel. 

No  greater  affliction  has  ever  come  upon  earth  and  lasted  longer  than  the  abom- 
ination of  Mohammed  and  the  Pope. 


320         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
March  11th. 


The  Elector  receives  tlie  Emperor's  Call  in  Torgau, 
and  his  Chancellor  Briick  advises  that  the  points  in  Faith 
and  Ceremonies  on  which  they  would  have  to  take  their 
stand  be  at  once  set  together  and  grounded  in  Scripture. 

March  Uth. 

Eck  writes  the  Emperor,  to  stir  him  against  the  Protestants. 

The  Elector  issne=  a  command  to  his  four  theoloo-inuii,  t'> 
promptly  prepare  a  paper  on  the  Articles  of  Faitli  wliicli 
were  in  dispute. 

It  was  to  be  attended  to  immediately,  for  this  was  ]\Iarch 
14th,  and  the  Emperor  had  set  April  8th  as  the  date  for  the 
Diet  at  Augsburg. 

Command  of  the  Elector  to  Luther,  Jonas,  Pomeranus  and 
Melanchthon. 

Original  in  Archives  at  Weimar. 

Printed  in  Colestin,  I,  134  ;  Forstemann,  I,  42. 

TorgaUt  Alarch  i^th,  i^jo. 

We  have  received  a  summons  from  the  Roman  Emperor  to  a  Diet  at  Augsburg, 
with  the  other  holy  estates  of  the  realm,  on  the  8lh  of  April  next,  which  the  Em- 
peror will  attend  in  person.  We  enclose  a  copy  of  the  substance  of  the  imperial 
mandate. 

Inasmuch  as  the  division  in  our  Christian  religion  will  be  one  of  the  most 
weighty  matters  considered,  and  as  it  is  important  for  the  Estates  themselves  to 
hear,  understand  and  test  every  opinion,  in  order  to  compare  and  bring  to  a  single 
Christian  truth,  and  to  do  away  with  everything  that  has  not  been  properly  explained 
or  transacted  right  on  both  sides,  that  one  true  religion  may  be  accepted  and  adhered 
to  by  us  all,  and  as  we  all  stand  and  contend  under  one  Christ,  and  all  live  in  one 
Commonwealth,  Church  and  Unity,  ...  in  view  of  the  pressing  necessity,  since 
it  may  be  that  said  Diet  is  to  be  held  in  the  place  of  a  Council,  or  National  As- 
sembly (National-versammlung),  in  order  that  we  may  be  rendered  firm  as  to  all 
the  disputed  Articles,  both  in  the  Faith  and  also  in  other  external  ecclesiastical 
customs  and  ceremonies  ;  so  that  we  may  before  the  beginning  of  such  a  Diet  be 
thoroughly  determined  whether,  and  in  what  form,  and  in  how  far,  we  and  other 
estates  who  have  accepted  and  admitted  the  pure  doctrine,  may  be  able  to  do  and 
suffer  with  a  good  conscience  before  God. 

We  ask  you  to  break  away  from  other  affairs  that  you  may  finish  this  work 
between  now  and  Oculi  Sunday  (March  20th),  and  come  here  to  Torgau  with  your 
result. 

The  time  between  now  and  the  Diet  is  very  short,  and  we  cannot  delay.      And 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.      321 

although  the  Call  does  not  expressly  give  permission  to  every  estate  to  come  with 
preachers  and  theologians,  yet  we  wish  you,  Dr.  Martin,  and  Doctor  Jonas,  Provost, 
and  also  Magister  Philip  Melanchthon,  to  so  regulate  your  affairs  and  those  of  the 
University  at  Wittenberg,  that  you  may  be  with  us  at  Torgau  on  the  day  mentioned, 
and  with  Magister  Spalatin  and  Eisleben  journey  with  us  toward  Coburg.  Mean- 
time we  shall  try  to  see  whether  it  will  be  possible  for  the  estates  to  command  the 
preachers  and  theologians  to  come  to  them  at  Augsburg,  that  we  may  have  you 
come  to  us  from  Coburg.  If  not,  you  are,  and  especially  you,  D.  Martinus,  to 
remain  at  Coburg  until  we  come  to  a  further  decision. 

In  view  of  what  these  things  mean  to  us  all  and  to  all  Christendom,  do  not 
allow  yourselves  to  be  overcome  with  anxiety.  You  will  thereby  gain  our  earnest 
and  gracious  favor.  Dated  Torgau,  Monday  after  Reminiscere,  Anno  Domini, 
1530. 

To  Doctor  Martin 
Doctor  Jonas 
Pommer 
Philip  Melanchthon. 


Luther  Writes  to  Jonas. 

Manuscript  in  Cod.  Rostocli. 

Printed  in  Ciilest.  I.  24 ;  Er.  Bf.  W.  VII,  253. 

March  ifth. 
To  Justus  Jonas,  Visitator  in  the  Duchy  of  Saxony. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ.  The  prince  has  written  us,  /.  e.,  you,  Pomeranus, 
Philip,  and  myself,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  all  in  common,  that  we  lay  aside  all 
other  business,  assemble,  and  complete,  before  next  Sunday,  what  may  be  necessary 
for  the  coming  Diet  on  April  8th.  P"or  Kaiser  Carl  will  be  present  at  Augsburg 
himself,  in  order  to  settle  all  differences,  as  he  writes  in  his  bull.  On  that  account 
we  three,  although  you  are  absent,  shall  do  as  much  as  we  can  to-day 
and  to-morrow.  Yet  it  will  also  be  incumbent  on  you  to  give  your  work  over 
to  your  associates,  in  order  to  fulfil  the  will  of  the  Prince,  and  join  us  here  to- 
morrow.     For  all  is  in  haste.     Christ  grant  that  all  occur  to  his  honor.      Amen. 

About  12  o'clock  on  March  14th,  1530. 

Martin  Luther. 

A  graphic  picture  indeed.  It  reveals  many  things  as  to 
the  coming  Confession — the  centrality  of  the  Elector  and 
his  serious  sense  of  responsibility  and  sober  zeal  for  the 
preservation  of  the  pure  doctrine,  and  the  unity  of  the  Faith ; 
the  leading  position  of  Luther  as  the  Elector's  spiritual 
pillar,  the  lack  of  knowledge  as  to  whether  Augsburg  would 
prove  to  be  a  Council  of  the  Church  which  would  unite  and 


332         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

purify  the  whole  Christian  Church,  or  whether  perhaps  the 
stand  taken  against  the  Protestants  at  Spires  would  be 
modified ;  and  contains  a  reflection  of  the  Emperor's  view. 

.][arch  21st. 


Jonas  had  not  been  reached  promptly  by  the  call  of  the 
14th,  and  a  second  summons  is  sent  to  him/ 

March  27th. 


Melanchthon  is  at  the  Elector's  court  at  Torgau  " — per- 
haps with  the  result  of  the  labors  of  the  theologians  at 
Wittenberg;  Luther  Avas  probably  not  yet  there/'  but  he, 
with  Melanchthon,  arrived  within  a  few  days.  Whether 
the  work  of  the  theologians  had  been  finished  in  Witten- 
berg, and  Melanchthon  sent  on  with  it  in  advance,  or 
whether  there  was  a  Conference  at  Torgau  after  Luther 
arrived  and  before  the  Elector  started,  we  do  not  know.  At 
all  events,  the  Torgau  Articles,  in  the  elaboration  of  which 
Luther  had  taken  a  principal  part,^*  but  which  are  in  the 
writing  of  Melanchthon,  were  now  presumably  sho^vn  to  the 
Elector  as  the  answer  of  the  Theologians. 

What  these  Torgau  Articles  actually  were,  as  a  document, 
has  been  a  matter  of  uncertainty,  but  historians  have  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  that  they  are  the  document  discovered  by 
Forstemann  in  tlie  "  Beilagen "  to  Briick's  Geschirhte  d. 
ItcIigions-IIandlunfjcn  in  1530,  in  the  archives  at  Weimar 
(Bl.  811-o2ob),  and  printed  in  the  Urkunden  Buch,  I, 
()S  s(|(|. 

The  Elector  had  definitely  instructed  them  to  prepare, 
first  and  foremost,  the  Articles  of  Faith  in  dispute,  and  as 


8'  C.  R.   II.    33. 

»76.,  23  sq. 

"^  For  Melanchthon  was  busy  with  the  writings  of  the  anti-Trinitarian  Cam- 
panus,  and  Luther  in  a  letter  on  April  1st  (C.  R.,  III.  566)  does  not  yet 
know  what  Campanus  said. 

^^  The  Elector  to  Luther,  May  11th,  1530:  "  As  yau  and  our  other  theologians 
at  Wittenberg  have  brought  into  summary  statement  the  articles  of  religion." 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.     323 

the  Torgau  Articles  are  in  the  form  of  single  deelarations 
concerning  the  abuses  of  the  Roman  Church  which  could 
not  be  yielded  to,  and  from  later  events,  we  may  perhaps 
infer  that  the  Schwabach  Articles  of  Luther,  of  five  months 
before,  were  given  to  the  Elector  as  the  answer  on  Faith ;  and 
these  Torgau  Articles  as  the  ansAver  on  Ecclesiastical  Life 
and  Ceremonies. 

One  week  after  the  probable  presentation  of  tliese  Articles, 
we  have  a  letter  of  Luther  to  his  friend,  Nicholas  Hausmanu. 


April  2ivd. 

LUTHER    TO     HAUSMANN. 

Original  in  the  Archives  at  Anhalt. 

Printed  in  Colestin,  I,  29 ;  Erlangen  Br.-W.,  VII,  290. 

April  2nd. 

To  THE  Wonderfully  Dear  Man,  Mr.  Nicolas  Hausmann,  the  Altogether 
Pure  Bisuor  of  the  Church  at  Zwickau,  hls  Superior  in  the  Lord. 
Grace  and  Peace.  ...  I  am  going  with  the  Prince  as  far  as  Cohurg,  together 
with  Philip  and  Jonas,  until  it  becomes  known  what  matters  shall  be  taken  up  at 
Augsburg.  You  get  your  Church  to  pray  diligently  for  this  Diet,  and  keep  your- 
self right  truly  in  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  also  remember  me  in  your  prayer. 

Martin  Luther. 


LUTHER    TO    CORDATUS.  , 

Original  Complete  in  Cod.  Rostocli. 
Printed  in  Er.  Br.-W.,  VII,  '191. 

April  2nd. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ.  As  I  hear  that  you  wish  to  hasten  to  the  Diet,  I 
positively  advise  you  not  to  do  so.  First,  since  I  have  not  been  called  thither,  but 
for  certain  reasons  shall  only  accompany  the  Elector  within  his  territory.  Second, 
because  the  matter  of  the  Gospel  will  scarcely  be  taken  up,  or  at  least  very  late, 
since  the  Princes  are  not  in  such  a  hurry  in  the  matter  of  godliness.  Greet  the 
companion  of  your  sorrow,  and  also  rejoice  somewhat  more  in  the  living  Christ, 
than  grieve  for  your  dead  son. 

Martin  Luther,  D. 


324         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

April  3rd. 

But  the  Emperor  had  delayed  his  journey  to  Germany, 
and  had  kept  his  plan  from  the  Elector.  Therefore  the 
Elector  did  not  wish  to  hasten  his  start  for  Augsburg.  It 
was  only  on  the  3rd  of  April,  on  Sunday,  that  Luther,  Mel- 
anchthon  and  Jonas  left  Wittenberg  in  order  to  join  the 
Elector  in  departing  from  Torgau.  The  following  Saturday 
they  were  still  staying  at  Weimar.  From  here  Jonas  re- 
ported that  intelligence  had  now  come  in  of  the  arrival  of  the 
Emperor  in  Trient,  and  that  he  would  probably  appear  in 
Augsburg;  if  ever,  it  was  now  necessary  to  call  upon  the 
Lord  in  Heaven  that  He  would  steer  His  vessel  through  the 
stormy  sea ;  Satan  will  surely  attempt  everything.  Presum- 
ably the  theological  travelers  were  not  idle  on  their  leisurely 
journey  of  twelve  days,  but  discussed  the  Confessional 
Articles  to  be  used  by  the  Elector. 

Ai^ril  loth. 

After  some  days  stay  in  Weimar,  the  princely  procession 
arrived  at  Coburg  on  the  15th. 

April  nth,  Easter  Day. 

Luther  preached  two  sermons,  and  another  on  second 
Easter.  As  always  under  similar  circumstances  he  pre- 
sented the  great  acts  and  truths  of  salvation  simply,  in 
his  ordinary  manner,  without  referring  to  present  events 
in  particular.  Only  in  a  general  way  did  he  furnish  com- 
fort and  encouragement  from  the  Gospel  for  the  pressure 
caused  by  the  Turk  and  the  Po]ie,  of  which  they  were  hearing 
now,  as  well  as  for  other  need,  hunger,  care,  and  the  like. 

Reports  and  rumors  had  come  to  Coburg  concerning  the 
Emperor  and  the  approaching  Diet.  It  was  said  that  the 
former  was  still  in  Mantua,  and  woiild  celebrate  Easter 
there ;  that  he  would  cross  the  Alps  only  in  the  beginning  of 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTANA.     325 

^lay,  and  then  bold  court  in  Innsbriick.  It  was  said  con- 
cerning the  Papists,  tbat  they  were  laboring  with  all  power 
to  prevent  the  assembly  of  the  Diet,  since  they  feared  nn- 
favorable  residts  from  it.  It  was  rnmorod  that  the  Pope 
was  angry  at  the  Emperor  because  the  latter  had  interfered 
in  things  ecclesiastical. 

The  one  report,  as  we  have  seen,  was  true.  Charles  had 
come  from  Italy  in  the  Springtime,  and,  being  received  mag- 
niticently  by  the  Tyrolese,  "  eager  to  do  all  honor  to  the 
grandson  of  their  beloved  Kaiser  Max,"  was  holding  conn 
at  Innsbriick.  But  the  brilliancy  of  his  reception  had  not 
blinded  him  to  the  purpose  of  his  visit.  His  object  was  the 
pacification  of  Germany,  and  his  thoughts  were  running  on 
plans  for  that  purpose.  His  letters  to  his  brother  Ferdinand, 
written  during  the  stages  of  the  journey,  "reveal  as  fully  as 
that  reserved  soul  could  unbosom  itself "  his  intentions  at 
Augsburg.  "  He  meant  to  use  every  persuasion  possible,  to 
make  what  compromises  his  conscience  permitted  (for  Cath- 
olicism was  a  faith  with  Charles),  to  effect  a  peaceful  settle- 
ment. But  if  these  failed,  he  was  determined  to  crush  the 
Reformation  by  force.  He  never  seems  to  have  doubted 
that  he  would  succeed.  Xever  a  thought  crossed  his  mind 
that  he  was  about  to  encounter  a  great  spiritual  force  whose 
depth  and  intensity  he  was  unable  to  measure,  and  which 
was  slowly  creating  a  new  world  unknowTi  to  himself  and  to 
his  contemporaries."  " 

At  Innsbruck. 


The  Emperor  delayed  at  Innsbriick  in  order  to  make 
every  possible  preparation  for  his  success  at  Augsbui-g. 
With  promises  and  presents,  he  sought  to  gain  different 
members  of  the  Diet  for  his  policy.  He  did  succeed  here 
in  reconverting  the  exiled  King  Christian  of  Denmark,  his 


w  Lindsay,  I,   p.  360. 


336         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

father-in-law,  from  Luther anism  to  Catholicism — a  victory 
that  greatly  pleased  the  Pope. 

He  even  seems  to  have  entertained  hopes  of  bringing  the 
Elector  John  himself  over  to  his  side,  if  he  could  succeed  in 
inducing  him  to  visit  his  court  before  the  Diet.  Duke  George 
and  other  Catholic  princes  were  to  be  there,  and  Campeg- 
gius,  the  Papal  nuncio,  was  continually  by  his  side.  It 
would  be  exceedingly  interesting  to  know  more  of  the  po- 
sition taken  by  Mercurinus,  his  chancellor,  in  those  days. 

Into  this  brilliant  assembly  at  Innsbriick  there  came  a 
letter  to  the  Emperor  from  the  bitterest  enemy  of  the  Re- 
formation, which  was  full  of  stirring  lies,  and  with  it  a 
paper  which  set  forth  the  Lutherans  as  heretics,  not  solely  in 
one  or  two  Articles,  but  in  almost  every  point  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  which  asserted  that  they  were  bringing  back  to 
life  again  all  the  worst  heresies  of  the  early  ages.  These 
were  the  Four  Hundred  and  Four  Theses  of  John  Eck, 
which  had  been  drawn  from  the  writings  of  the  Reformers 
and  placed  their  teachings  falsely  side  by  side  with  those  of 
the  ancient  heretical  sects ;  and  these  were  sent  by  Eck  him- 
self in  a  printed  copy  to  the  Emperor. 

The  change  in  the  Emperor's  mind — from  his  position  in 
the  Call — can  be  imagined.  The  Lutherans  were  now  on 
trial  as  to  the  very  fundamentals  of  their  doctrine,  and 
the  fatuity  of  their  appearing  at  Augsburg  with  a  few  points 
on  ecclesiastical  abuses  is  pathetic.  Xo  wonder  the  Counts 
of  Xassau  advised  the  Elector  to  prepare  a  thorough  report 
in  Latin  or  German  on  the  matter  of  Religion. 

!No  wonder,  too,  that  the  poor  translation  of  the  Sehwabach 
Articles  which  the  Elector  sent  to  Innsbriick  failed  to  make 
impression ;  that  Luther's  blunt  Admonition  to  the  Catholic 
Clerical  Estates  at  Augsburg,  which  reached  the  Emperor's 
eye  at  Innsbriick,  displeased  him ;  and  that  he  sent  down  a 
sharp  demand  that  Evangelical  preaching  be  stopped,  and  a 
request  that  the  Elector  come  to  meet  him  on  the  way.  Bur 
we    are   anticipating,    and    must   return   back    to   the   poor 


PROYJDEXCE    AXD    THE    AUGUSTANA.    3-?7 

Elector,    and   his   guileless   little   company   at    Coburg,    still 
sunning  themselves  in  the  imperial  favor. 


Luther  was  at  Coburg,  unconcerned.  He  asked  the 
prayers  of  his  friends,  and  spoke  with  calmness  of  the  un- 
certain situation.  His  realm  was  that  of  the  birds,  and  the 
sky,  and  the;  ])ure  Word  of  God.  He  evidently  did  nor 
believe  that  Augsburg  was  to  be  the  great  confessional  Ru- 
bicon for  the  Church.  It  was  to  be  the  scene  of  another  ex- 
hibition of  diplomatic  statesmanship.  He  did  not  care  to 
write  a  Confession  to  suit  such  an  occasion,  and  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  Princes  at  the  Diet  would  not  be  very  active 
in  religious  afl'aira/'  Luther  was  really  more  concerned 
about  the  "  Turk  and  Mohammed."  It  was  Melanchthou 
who  was  filled  with  heavy  cares  concerning  the  inner  sit- 
uation of  Germany." 

While  the  Elector  and  his  train  were  waiting  in  Coburg, 
doubtless  Melanchthon  took  the  statements  of  abuses  brought 
along  from  Torgau,  and  began  to  compose  a  connected  writing 
on  the  foundation  of  the  labors  mentioned  above,  which 
should  be  delivered  at  Augsburg  as  the  confession  and  justi- 
fication of  the  Evangelical  party.  He  did  it  in  agreement 
with  Luther ;  ^  and  not  only  put  the  Articles  themselves  into 
good  style,  but  began  to  write  the  Introduction '°  to  this 
Saxon  Confession,  in  praise  of  the  Elector.  According  to 
A.  Buchholzer,  Melanchthon,  many  years  after,  in  1554, 
had  exclaimed  valde  irato  animo:  "  Etiam  Lutiierus  ipse  non 
voluit  scribere  talem  aliquam  confessionem," " — which  he 
himself  then  was  compelled  to  write. 


2«  Virl.  above  letter  to  Cordatus  of  April  2nd.  His  experience  in  connection 
witli  the  proposed  "  Bund  "  in  Spring  and  Fall,  and  all  the  diplomacy  he  heard 
and  saw  doubtless  convinced  him  of  this.  He  had  not  calculated  on  a  provi- 
dential use  of  John   Eek,    as  a  blessing   in   disguise. 

3'  Jonas  from  Weimar :  Pressel,  Jonas,  135  ;  Cod.  Goth.,  399  ;  Erlang. 
XVII,   350  sqq. 

^  C.   R.,   II,    39    sq. 

'^  To  be  inferred  from  the  statement  in  C.  R.,  II,   39. 

"  LibeU.  arcanorum,  etc.,  Msc.  Dresd.  B.  193.  Seid.  K.  u.  S.  Bl.,  1877, 
p.   261. 


338         THE    LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

April  17  th. 

The  Elector  arrived  at  Cobiirg  on  the  15th,  and  here 
awaited  the  results  of  an  inqnirv  which  he  already  had  sent 
on  to  the  magistrate  of  ^N^iirnherg,  which  was  evangelical, 
concerning  a  free  safe  conduct "  for  Luther's  passing  through. 
On  April  17th,  he  received  a  reply  of  declination  from  Xiirn- 
berg,  and  since  Luther  was  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire, 
and  there  was  no  imperial  safe-conduct  to  permit  him  to 
appear  at  Augsburg,  it  now  finally  seemed  necessary  to  leave 
him  back  within  the  borders  of  the  Electoral  domain  at  Co- 
burg,  from  where  his  advice  could  still  be  gained,  in  a  few 
days,  at  Augsburg,  In  1854,  the  rationalistic  writer 
Kiickert,  in  a  work  on  ^'  Luther's  Eelation  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession,"  advanced  the  theory  that  Luther's  detention  at 
Coburg  was  part  of  a  plan  secretly  arranged  in  advance  by 
the  Elector  and  the  chancellor  Briick,  who  ])roposed  to  com- 
promise with  Rome  in  a  manner  to  which  Luther  would 
never  consent,  and  decided  to  keep  Luther  here  to  prevent 
his  spoiling  their  game.  But  the  silence  of  Melanchthon 
(who  reported  so  much — even  in  later  years),  the  knowl- 
edge which  Luther  had  of  the  Confession  on  which  Me- 
lanchthon was  working  at  Coburg,  and  especially  the  stand 
actually  made  by  the  Elector  and  by  Briick  at  Augsburg 
with  reference  to  preaching,  and  a  consideration  of  the  im- 
perial and  Papal  tilt  over  a  Free  Council  at  Bologna,  together 
with  the  fact  that  the  Elector  did  not  accept  the  invitation 
to  go  to  the  Emperor,  and  was  not  invested  by  the  Emperor 
at  Augsburg;  and,  above  all,  the  express  declaration  of  the 
messenger  at  Augsburg,  in  the  letter  of  safe-conduct  of  the 
30th  of  April,  that,  if  the  Elector  had  one  in  his  train  who 
stood  under  the  ban  of  the  Emperor,  this  safe-conduct 
should  not  be  regarded  as  valid,"  with  the  declination  even 


"  For  the  negotiations  with  Niirnberg  concerning  the  safe  conduct  see 
Kolde,  Analecta,  119  sq.  ;  Forstemann,  Urkundenbiich,  146  ;  Kolde.  Theolor/ische 
Litcraturzeitung,  1886,  p.  445  ;  Knaake.  Luthers  Antheil  an  der  Aiigsb. 
CoHf.,   36   sqq. 

"  Forstemann,   Vrkutidenht(ch,  p.   161. 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.     329 

of  Xiirnberg,  which  was  not  a  party  to  the  Elector's  original 
plans,  to  fnrnish  a  safe-couchict  to  Lnther,  show  how  nn- 
fonnded  this  theory  is.  ^^ 

So  Luther,  the  Confessor,  summoned  to  Worms  a  decade 
earlier,  was  to  remain  in  solitude,  like  a  bird  in  its  darkened 
cage,  on  the  heights  of  Coburg,  in  the  rooms  of  tlie  mighty 
Castle.  He  should  enjoy  its  protection:  he  did  rejoice  in  its 
silence  and  loneliness. 

When  the  pass  through  Xiirnberg  was  denied,  Luther 
wrote  to  his  old  friend,  Cohan  Hess,  then  in  Xiirnberg, 
that  he  would  send  him  four  living  letters  in  the  shape  of 
Melanchthon,  Jonas,  Spalatin  and  Agricola;  and  that  he 
would  gladly  come  as  the  fiftli,  but  some  one  had  said  to 
him,  "  Keep  silence:  you  have  '  a  bad  voice  '  "  (eine  schlechte 
Stinime);  but  that  ITess  would  see  him;  /.  c,  Luther, 
in  Melanchthon.  For  he  bestowed  full  confidence  upon  Me- 
lanchthon as  his  representative. 

April  IHih. 

LUTHER    TO    X.    IIAUSMANN. 

Original  in  Anhalt  Gesammt-Archiv. 
Colestin,  I,  29  ;  Eriangen  Br.  \V.,  VH,  2%. 

April  iSth. 

I  have  been  ordered  by  the  Prince  to  remain  in  Coburg,  after  the  others  have 
departed  to  the  Diet.  I  do  not  know  for  "what  reason.  So  everything  is  uncertain 
from  one  day  to  another. 

April  22nd. 

LUTHER    TO    W.    LINK. 

Original  in  Wolf  but.,  Cod.  Helmst.,  285,  B. 
Ciilest.,  I,  30;  Er.  Br.  W.,  VII,  299. 

April  22nd. 
As  for  the  rest,  we  are  lying  here  at  Coburg,  uncertain  concerning  the  Diet  and 


*^  Cip.  also  Knaake,  in  loco. 


330         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  arrival  of  the  Kaiser.  Although  my  colleagues  go  to  Augsburg,  the  Prince 
desires  that  I  remain  here.  You  will  see  them,  viz.,  Philip,  Jonas,  Eisleben  and 
Spalatin,  vi^hen  the  Diet  convenes. 

On  the  Friday  after  Easter,  the  22nd  of  April,  the  Elector, 
who  up  to  this  time  had  been  awaiting  reliable  intelligence 
concerning  the  opening  of  the  Diet,  received  an  imperial 
rescript  according  to  which  he  should  appear,  without  fail, 
in  Augsburg  bv  the  end  of  the  month.  Immediately  he  fixed 
the  next  day  for  his  departure  from  Coburg. 

Aijril  23rd. 

Early  in  the  morning,  before  four  o'clock,  while  it  is  still 
dark,  Luther  was  brought  to  the  Castle."  His  friends,  Jonas, 
Melanchthon  and  Spalatin,  started  on  the  way  to  Augsburg 
with  the  Elector,  while  Agricola  arrived  at  Augsburg  as  the 
companion  of  Count  Albrecht  of  j\Iansfeld.  Luther's  papers 
did  not  arrive  promptly,  and  he  spent  the  earlier  part  of  the 
day  in  examining  his  new  surroundings.  About  three  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  whom  he 
had  left  just  that  morning  before  dawn. 

LUTHEE   TO    MELANCHTHON. 

MS.  in  Wolfenbuttel,  Cod.  Helmst.  108,  f.  11. 
Printed  Colestin  I,  39;  Erlang.  Br.  VII,  302. 

April  23rd. 

To  his  exceedingly  dear  brother.  Master  Philip,  the  faithful  and  prudent  servant 

and  disciple  of  Christ. 

1.  Grace  and  peace  in  the  Lord  Jesus.  At  last  vre  have  reached  our  Sinai, 
dearest  Philip,  but  we  shall  make  a  Zion  out  of  it,  and  build  three  tabernacles  :  One 
for  the  Psalter,  one  for  the  Prophets,  and  one  for  ^sop. 

The  place  is  exceedingly  pleasant  and  very  well  adapted  to  study,  except  that 
your  absence  makes  me  sad.  I  am  beginning  to  blaze  up  against  the  Turks  and 
Mohammed  in  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  for  I  see  the  raging  of  Satan  against  bodies 
and  souls.  Therefore  I  shall  pray  without  ceasing  until  I  have  the  consciousness 
that  my  supplication  is  heard  in  Heaven.    You  are  troubled  by  the  internal  disorder 


"  Forstemann,  a.  a.  O.,  I,  143  sq.  152.  For  Luther's  getting  to  Coburg 
on  the  night  of  the  22nd,  and  morning  of  the  2.3rd,  compare  his  letters  written 
to   Melanchthon.   Jonas  and   Spalatin. 


rUOVJDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.     3:U 

of  our  Empire.  But  we  are  the  ones  who  are  ordained  to  see  and  to  sufi'er  these 
last  two  woes.  But  this  very  violence  is  a  testimony  and  a  prophecy  of  Satan's  end 
and  our  redemption. 

2.  I  pray  Christ  that  He  will  give  you  continuously  good  sleep,  and  that  He 
will  free  your  heart  from  cares,  t.  e.,  from  the  fiery  darts  of  Satan.      Amen. 

I  am  writing  this  because  I  am  idle,  for  I  have  not  yet  received  my  chest  with 
the  papers  and  other  things. 

Everything  here  is  in  keeping  with  solitude  ;  the  very  large  house  that  juts  forth 
from  the  castle  is  entirely  ours,  and  we  hold  the  keys  to  all.  It  is  said  that  over 
thirty  people  abide  here,  among  them  twelve  night  watchmen  and  two  trumpeteers 
upon  the  towers.  But  why  am  I  telling  you  this  ?  It  is  true  there  is  nothing  else 
that  I  can  write.  By  evening  I  hope  the  "Kastner"  will  be  here.  Then,  perhaps, 
we  shall  hear  something  new.      The  grace  of  God  be  with  you.      Amen. 

3.  Greet  Doctor  Caspar  for  me  and  M.  Spalatin,  for  I  will  request  Jonas  to 
greet  Agricola  and  Aquila.  Out  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Birds,  at  3  o'clock  this 
afternoon,  1530.  Your 

Martin  Luther. 


Luther  then  wrote  to  Jonas,  who  also  had  gone  on  with  the 
Elector  that  morning. 


LUTHER   TO   JOXAS. 
( Oui  of  the  Kingdom  of  Birds. ) 

MS.  in  WolfeubUttel,  Cod.  Helmst.,  108,  fol.  9b. 
Printed  Cblestin,  I,  fol.  38b  ;  Erlang.  Br.,  VH,  305. 

April  2jrd. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  Jesus.  At  last  we  are  sitting  here  beneath  the  clouds, 
and  in  truth  in  the  Kingdom  of  the  Birds.  My  dearest  Jonas,  not  to  speak  of  the 
other  birds,  whose  mingled  medley  of  sound  rises,  clearly  above  the  storm,  the  jack- 
daws have  taken  possession  of  a  whole  wood  right  before  our  eyes.  They  have  been 
chattering  from  4  o'clock  this  morning  unwearily  and  unceasingly  throughout  the 
whole  day,  and  perhaps  they  will  keep  it  up  all  night.  .  .  .  Here  I  see  before 
me  the  whole  army  of  sophists  and  cochleits  assembled  out  of  all  the  world,  so  that 
I  may  become  better  acquainted  with  their  wisdom  and  their  sweet  song.  The 
nightingale  has  not  yet  appeared,  but  her  forerunner,  the  cuckoo,  praises  itself  in  the 
glorious  beauty  of  its  voice.  Likewise  the  robin  and  the  lark  are  cheerfully  prais- 
ing the  Lord.  You  see  that  I  have  nothing  to  write  to  you.  The  Lord  be  with 
you,  and  we  will  pray  for  one  another.  This  is  necessary.  Greet  M.  Agricola 
and  Aquila  for  me.  I  will  write  them  as  early  as  possible.  Farewell.  Out  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Birds,  especially  of  the  "Dohlen,"  1530. 

Your 

Martin  Luther. 


3o3         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

We  see  that  Luther  was  already  at  home  amid  his  siu'- 
roundings,  and  that,  relieved  from  care,  his  imagination  had 
time  to  picture  the  Emperor  and  the  coming  Diet  in  the 
feathered  tribes  outside  his  window  with  whom  he  had 
already  grown  familiar.  He  knew  the  song  was  continuous, 
when  he  wrote  to  Jonas,  but  did  not  yet  know  whether  they 
kept  up  their  music  in  the  early  hours  of  the  night. 

In  his  first  letter,  to  Melanchthon,  Luther  had  sent  greet- 
ings to  Spalatin.  About  five  o'clock,  he  determined  to  write 
to  Spalatin  himself,  and  in  this  letter  lie  refers  to  the  two 
missives  he  had  finished,  and  repeats  his  fancies  concerning 
the  birds  to  Spalatin  also. 


LUTHER    TO    SPALATIN. 

MS.  in  Wolfeubiittel,  Cod.  Helrast.,  108,  fol.  13  (Dated,  May  19th). 
Printed  In  Ciilestin,  I,  fol.  37b;  Erlang.  Br.  W.,  VII,  307. 

April  2jrd. 

To  the  dear  man,    Mr.    George  Spalatin,    the   faithful    Servant   of  Christ   in   the 

Gospel,  his  Superior. 

Grace  and  peace  in  the  Lord.  You  are  not  the  only  one,  my  dear  Spalatin, 
who  are  journeying  to  a  Diet,  for  we  also  arrived  at  a  Diet  as  soon  as  we  parted 
from  you,  and  thus  we  have  greatly  anticipated  you.  And  our  journey  to  the  Diet 
was  entirely  without  hindrance.  It  is  true  you  are  going  to  Augsburg,  but  you  do 
not  know  when  you  will  see  the  beginning  of  your  Diet.  Here  we  have  dropped 
right  into  the  midst  of  ours.  Here  you  can  see  proud  kings,  dukes,  and  other 
dignitaries  of  the  realm,  who  are  earnestly  caring  for  all  emergencies  and  for  those 
who  belong  to  them,  and  who  are  making  the  air  resonant  with  their  resolutions 
and  their  theses.  They  despise  the  folly  of  a  raiment  adorned  with  gold  and  silver, 
and  are  all  clothed  in  one  color  and  with  incredible  similarity.  They  are  all  ar- 
rayed entirely  in  black.  They  all  sing  the  same  musical  score  in  the  same  pitch, 
except  that  there  is  a  lovely  difference  between  the  voices  of  the  old  ones  and  the 
young  ones.  I  have  not  yet  seen  or  heard  their  emperor.  .As  much  as  I  can  un- 
derstand from  their  interpreter  they  have  unanimously  resolved  to  undertake  a  year's 
crusade  against  the  barley  fields.  We  very  much  enjoy  the  privilege  of  being 
spectators  at  this  Diet. 

But  enough  of  pleasantry,  although  it  is  necessary  to  drive  away  the  earnest 
thoughts  that  rise,  if  indeed  it  is  possible  to  banish  them.  You  will  hear  the  rest 
from  Jonas  and  Philip.  Out  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Winged  Dohlen,  about  5  o'clock, 
1530.  Your 

Martin  Luther. 


VROV ID E N a E    A  X D    T HE    AUGU S T A N A .     333 

April  28th. 

Five  days  later,  Luther  penned  a  beautiful  little  letter  to 
the  friends  he  had  left  in  Wittenberg: — 

LUTHER   TO    HIS    TABLE    COMPANIONS    IX    AVITTENBERG. 

MS.  Cod.  (ioth.  B.  28,  fol.  1% 
Printed  Erlaiig.    54,  p.  143. 

April  28th. 

Grace  afid  peace  in  Christ.  Dear  Friends  :  We,  namely,  myself,  Magister  Veit 
and  Cyriacus,  are  not  going  to  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  but  we  have  come  upon  another 
kind  of  Diet.  .  .  .  To-day  we  have  heard  the  first  nightingale,  for  she  did  not 
quite  trust  April.  Up  to  this  time  we  had  nothing  but  lovely  weather.  It  has  not 
rained  at  all,  except  yesterday  a  little.  Perhaps  it  is  otherwise  with  you.  Herewith 
I  commend  you  to  God.  Keep  house  well.  From  the  Diet  of  the  "Maltztiirken," 
the  28th  of  April,  1530. 

Martinus  Luther.  D. 

Aiir'd   20th. 


Luther  tells  Melanchthon  that  his  Admonition  to  the 
Clergy  at  Augsburg  is  well  under  way.  Luther  was  in  hope, 
calm  and  peace  at  Coburg,  which  contrasted  greatly  with 
the  constant  anxiety  of  Melanchthon. 


LUTHER    TO    MELANCHTHON. 

MS.  in  Wolfenbiittel,  Cod.  Ilelmst.  108,  f  ,  10b. 
Printed  in  Erlang.  Br.  VII,  p.  313. 

April  2gth. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ.  The  house  of  Jonas  has  been  hallowed  by  the  crv 
of  a  fifth  child.  .  .  .  Find  out  what  they  of  Stras.sburg  are  intending  Rut 
Carlstadt  will  make  my  prophecy  true  in  that  I  said  that  he  does  not  believe  there 
is  a  God ;  yet  they  may  go  and  do  what  they  wish.  Here  there  is  no  news  except 
that  we  are  wondering  that  no  letters  have  come  from  you.  I  sent  letters  to  you 
on  the  first  day  on  which  we  separated.  But  now,  because  the  messenger  is  in 
great  haste,  and  I  have  been  overwhelmed  with  a  great  multitude  of  letters,  I  have 
been  unable  to  write  several.  We  are  living  here  like  lords,  and  are  treated  too 
much  as  such.  My  shinbone  does  not  want  to  heal  yet.  I  judge  that  a  sort  of 
rheum  will  result,  which  I  would  like  to  prevent,  and  yet  I  do  not  know.  I  am 
writing  about  it  to  Dr.  Caspar. 

My  admonition  to  the  Clerical  Estate  is  progressing.      It  is  growing  under  my 

25 


;j3-t         THE   LU  THE  RAX    C  0  N  FE  >S  S 1 0  N  S . 

hands,  the  material  as  well  as  the  violence  of  attack,  so  that  I  am  compelled  to 
drive  off  a  whole  troop  [t.  e.,  his  thoughts]  by  force,  since  they  do  not  cease  to 
press  in  upon  me  unbidden.  May  the  Lord,  Who  has  blessed  Jonas  with  a  fifth 
little  son,  also  bless  you  with  a  third,  a  second  Georg.  Amen.  Amen.  Out  of 
the  Diet  of  the  Mailander,  April  29th,  1530. 

Martin  Luther. 


Meantime  the  Elector  and  his  train  had  spent  the  week  in 
journeying  on  to  Augsburg. 

April  30th. 

The  Elector  receives  a  safe-conduct  for  his  train  into 
Augsburg,  but  Luther  is  expressly  excluded,  though  not 
mentioned  by  name. 

May  2nd. 

THE  ELECTOR  BEACHES  AUGSBURG. 

To-day  we  see  John  the  Constant  entering  the  city  of  Augs- 
burg. He  is  here,  now,  in  response  to  the  Call  of  his  imperial 
lord,  issued  on  January  21st,  and  received  by  him  on  March 
22nd." 

The  old  Elector's  coming  all  tlie  way  to  Augsburg"  had 
cost  great  effort,  spiritual,  confessional,  diplomatic,  and 
financial  on  his  part,  and  to  keep  him  there  would  be  an  even 
greater  strain.     He  lived  only  a  year  or  two  longer. 

But  he  was  the  first  on  the  ground,  to  the  surprise  of  every- 
body, especially  the  Papists,  who  had  "supposed  that  the  fear 
of  so  many  mighty  foes  would  hold  him  away.  His  steadfast- 
ness and  un})erturbed  demeanor  caught  every  eye,  and  the 


"  The  first  date  for  the  Diet  was  April  8th.  On  the  way,  the  Elector 
learned  of  a  postponement  to  May  1st.  Then  the  news  came  en  route  that 
the  Emperor  was  celebrating  Easter  at  Mantua.  However,  the  Elector  was 
on  hand  May  2nd,  and  the  other  princes  came  a  week  later.  The  Emperor 
did  not  arrive — in  part  to  tire  the  Elector  into  submission — until  June  15th, 
when  the  Roman  Corpus  Christi  must  first  be  celebrated,  and  the  sessions  did 
not  open  until  the  20th.  StiUg,  II,  1.56,  says  of  the  first  postponement:  "The. 
business  (after  the  crowning  at  Bologna)  accumulated  to  such  an  extent  that 
the    Emperor   had   to   postpone   the   opening   of   the   Diet." 

"  For  reasons  why  the  Elector  had  decided  to  go  to  Augsburg,  see  Cypj'iatj 
p.  151. 


rnovjDENCE  Ay  I)  the  august  an  a.    335 

majority  wished  that  he  had  not  come.  He  had  sent  a  repre- 
sentative, Hans  von  Doltzig,  to  the  counts  of  Nassau  and 
Neuenar,  asking  them  to  look  after  his  interests,  especially 
in  the  matter  of  the  electoral  investiture,  and  the  many  re- 
ligious charges  preferred  against  him.  Doltzig  rode  around 
through  Germany  and  Italy  unable  to  find  the  Emperor,  imtil 
he  at  last  reached  Innsbriick  five  days  in  advance  of  Charles, 
and  there  gained  a  personal  audience  and  a  gracious  reply 
from  his  Majesty."" 

As  soon  as  the  Elector  heard  of  the  Emperor's  arrival  at 
Innsbriick,  he  sent  congratulations  through  the  hereditary 
marshalls,  Sebastian  and  Joachim  of  Paffenheim,  and  de- 
spatched his  counsel,  Hans  von  Minqvitz,  to  Innsbruck,  to 
notify  the  Emperor  of  his  arrival  at  Augsburg,  to  congratu- 
late his  majesty  on  the  coronation,  and  to  aid  Doltzig  in  his 
labors.** 

The  faithful  Elector  had  been  careful,  in  his  arrangements, 
to  adhere  closely  to  the  imperial  instructions.  After  the  Call 
had  reached  him  on  March  11th  at  home,  his  Chancellor 
Briick  at  once  advised  that  the  Saxon  theologians  prepare  an 
Opinion  "of  that  upon  which  our  party  has  stood  immovable 
up  to  now,  mit  griindlicher  Bewahrung  derselbigen  aus  gott- 
licher  Schrift."  ^'  His  theologians  at  the  University,  with 
Luther  at  the  head,  were  bidden,  on  March  14th,  to  consult 
concerning  the  controversial  articles  "both  in  faith  and  also 
in  other  external  ceremonies,"  and  deliver  a  report  at  Tor- 
gau."  These  "  Torgau  Articles  "  have  never  been  found  un- 
der this  name,  but  Brieger  "  has  shown  that  they  are  probably 
a  document  preserved  by  Forstemann,^"  which  the  Elector 
took  with  his  party  to  Augsburg,  and  which  was  made  the 
base  of  the  earliest  confession. 

It  contained  propositions  on  Abuses,  was  discussed  and 


«  Salig,  Hist,  der  Aufjsp.  Conf.,  II,  161,  162. 

«  Miiller,  VIII,   466,  477. 

"  Forst.,   I,    39. 

*8  C.  R.,  II,   25   sq. 

«  K.    Gesch.    Studien,    1888,    268    sqq. 

so  Ur.  B.,  II,   68-74. 


336         THE    LUTHEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

given  to  the  Elector  at  Torgau,  and  was  doubtless  further  dis- 
cussed and  determined  on  by  Luther  and  Melanchthon  on  the 
way  to  Coburg.  It  did  not  deal  largely  with  doctrine,  but 
took  for  granted  that  the  doctrine  preached  by  the  Evangel- 
icals was  "Christian  and  comforting  and  not  new,"  and  rec- 
ommended, if  it  were  desired,  "the  delivery  of  Articles  in 
which  the  whole  doctrine  was  set  forth  in  an  orderly  way." 

This  paper  Melanchthon  was  commissioned  to  elaborate 
into  a  defensive  delineation  of  the  Saxon  religious  situation, 
referring  not  so  much  to  the  faith  as  to  the  changes  in  the 
rites  in  the-  churches ;  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  attacking 
abuses,  but  in  order  to  defend  the  Elector's  reform  in  Saxony 
as  not  being  greatly  at  variance  with  Rome,  except  where, 
for  self-evident  reasons,  this  was  absolutely  necessary. 

This  was  the  Elector's  "Apology,"  so-called  because  it  was 
intended  to  defend  the  Elector  and  his  reform  before  the 
outside  world  from  the  slanders  that  were  constantly  being 
uttered  against  it  by  the  Romanists/' 

A  chief  part  of  it  consisted  of  a  Preface  in  praise  and  de- 
fence of  the  Elector's  loyalty  to  the  Emperor  and  the  church. 
At  Coburg,  Melanchthon  had  begun  work  on  the  Preface,  con- 
tinued at  the  same  on  the  journey,  and  was  still  elaborating 
it  when  the  Elector  and  his  train  reached  Augsburg."* 

LUTHER  IS   MISSING. 

The  Elector's  central  figure,  Luther,  was  not  among  the 
Augsburg  party.  He  had  been  left  at  Coburg  because  he  was 
under  the  imperial  ban,  and  the  A])ology  went  on  to  Augs- 
burg in  the  hand  of  Melanchthon.  There  were  a  number  of 
good  reasons,  from  the  Elector's  point  of  view,  why  Luther 
should  not  be  the  bearer  of  the  Electoral  Apology  in  person. 
The  Elector  indeed  had  intended  to  take  Luther  along  to 
Augsburg  (Fcirst.,  Archiv.,  p.  17),  but  he  found  it  imprac- 


■''  In  Spain  it  was  reported  that  the  Lutherans  did  not  even  believe  in  a  God. 
^■■'  On    this    section,    cp.    Forst.,    Archiv.,    I,    17 ;    Schirrmacher,    a.    a.    O.,    25 
sqq.  ;      Kolde,  Anal.,  454  sqq. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.    3:^)7 

ticable  on  account  of  the  ban.  Augsburg  would  not  admit 
him.  The  Elector  tried  at  least  to  have  him  close  at  hand  in 
iSTuremberg;  but  to  keep  terms  with  the  Emperor,  Nurem- 
berg would  not  grant  him  even  a  safe  conduct. 

Moreover  Luther  had  not  been  summoned  to  confess,  this 
time.  It  was  the  Elector's  own  turn.  This  was  not  a  Coun- 
cil of  the  Church,  but  a  Diet  of  the  State.  The  Emperor  had 
exerted  himself  to  secure  a  Council,  but  tlie  Pope  was  ob- 
stinate,'** and  the  Emperor  liad  then  fallen  back  on  the  one 
recourse  open  to  him,  viz.,  another  Diet.  The  Edict  of  1526 
and  the  Call  of  1530  made  the  Elector  the  party  responsible 
for  the  Faith  in  his  territory.  And  if  the  Elector  and  the 
Estates,  as  Weber  points  out,"  had  attempted  to  deliver  a 
Confession  to  the  Emperor,  of  which  it  was  known  that  the 
condemned  Luther  was  the  author,  it  would  have  awakened 
bitterness,  and  subverted  the  object  of  the  Diet,  which  was  an 
impartial  presentation  of  differences,  and  a  decision  in 
unity." 

In  the  second  place,  as  Melanchthon  in  later  years  himself 
reported  to  Camerarius,  Luther  did  not  care  to  write  a  Con- 
fession, or  "  Apology,"  for  Augsburg — such  as  was  at  that 
time  intended,  namely,  one  that  expressed  differences  in 
doctrine  and  practice  as  smoothly  and  gently  as  possible,  and 
which  was  phrased  in  diplomacy ;  and  which  was  to  be  offered 
to  a  political  Diet,  as  the  sum  of  what  the  Protestants  might 
yield,  and  not  to  a  religious  Council.  The  Preface^  already 
wrought  out  in  praise  of  the  Elector  could  not  as  a  Confes- 
sion have  been  to  Luther's  way  of  thinking,  although  Luther 
himself  had  suggested  the  leading  points  for  another  purpose. 
There  is  truth  in  Weber's  statement^  that  it  was  not  advisable 


52»  "  ■j-jjg  Emperor  experienced  to  satiety  at  Bologna  that  a  Council  was 
not  agreeable  to  the  Pope." — Cyprian,  p.  44  :  and  to  the  Pope  the  Emperor 
was  obliged  to  bend  the  knee — Ad  pontiflcio  pedes  flexo  genu  provolutus. — 
Masenius  d.  1.  171. 

^  Gesch.,  I,    27. 

"  In  deciding  to  keep  Luthor  at  Coburg,  the  Elector  had  no  doubt  al.so 
weighed  the  danger  of  an  emphasis  of  Luther  at  Augsburg.  Already  at  Worms 
the   Elector's   charge   of   Luther   was   accompanied   with    '"  schier   etwas    Miihe." 

'-^  Cp.    the   Oldest   Redaction. 

^  Gesch.,  I,  28. 


338         THE   LUTHEUAN    CO^^EESSIONS. 

to  have  Luther,  who,  when  it  came  to  speaking  the  trntli, 
spared  neither  priest  nor  king,  open  his  month  before  tlie 
Emperor  and  the  kingdom  in  sneh  a  delicate  situation  as  the 
religions  situation  that  Spring.  "  For  truth,  if  it  is  obliged 
to  battle  with  prejudice,  is  more  effective  in  its  action  upon 
the  human  heart,  if  it  appear  in  an  unassuming  and  pleasing 
garb,  rather  than  in  a  rough  prickly  covering,  which  dis- 
graces it,  and  which  scratches  the  face  and  draws  the  blood 
of  those  who  are  filled  with  prejudice,  but  very  seldom,  if 
ever,  improves  the  situation.  .  .  .  Melanchthon  had  a  much 
quieter  spirit,  was  gentle  and  modest,  and  knew  how  to  tell 
the  truth,  in  beautiful  and  pleasant  style,  in  which  he  ex- 
celled the  theologians  of  his  time,  without  embittering  the 
opposite  party." 

However,  there  was  another  fact — which  documentary 
critics  like  Weber  fail  to  catch — inwoven  in  the 
larger  course  of  history,  that  bears  upon  this  point.  Mel- 
anchthon is  to  be  credited  with  an  independent  point  of  view, 
which  he  had  acquired  at  the  Diet  of  Spires,  which  he  had 
succeeded  to  some  extent  in  impressing  on  Luther,  which  was, 
so  far  as  the  situation  was  a  political  one,  responsible  for  the 
rejection  of  Zwingli  and  the  Swiss  at  Marburg,  and  which 
harmonized  very  fully  with  the  fundamental  outlook  of  the 
imperial  Call.  It  was  this :  that  separation  from  Rome  was 
not  necessarily  a  finality,  and  that  if  the  Lutherans  on  their 
part  would  renounce  the  more  radical  and  irresponsible  Sac- 
ramentarians  (the  Reformed),  and  Rome  would  purify  her- 
self of  her  worst  errors,  there  would  be  a  possibility,  not 
merely  of  compromise,  but  of  the  restoration  of  unity  with 
the  old  Church,  on  true  Lutheran  ground." 


"  The  delusiveness  of  this  conviction,  strong  in  both  Melanchthon  and  the 
Emperor  came  to  the  surface  first,  when  the  Lutheran  Faith  was  finally  worked 
out  into  the  Augsburg  Confession,  whose  fundamental  teachings,  principles  and 
tone,  despite  its  soft  tread,  can  never  be  brought  into  accord  with  Romanist 
doctrine ;  and  second,  when  all  attempts  at  fair  dealing  and  mutual  under- 
standing in  the  Diet  were  frustrated  by  the  assumption,  the  claims  and  the 
secret  machinations  of  Rome.  The  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  its  Confession  and 
in  its  deliberations,  is  a  graphic  commentary,  valuable  for  all  time  and  for 
every  country,  on  the  irreconcilable  conflict  between  Rome  and  the  Protestant 
Christian    conscience. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.    3;;9 

Still  another  fact  that  dare  not  be  ignored  is  this :  the  call 
of  Providence  to  confess  at  Augsburg  was  not  a  mere  renewal 
of  the  primitive  call  to  Luther  at  Worms.  The  Evangelical 
Faith  had  been  planted  in  many  localities  and  was  growing 
to  maturity.  jMelanchthon's  Visitation  Articles,  or  Saxon 
Confession,  had  already  been  written.  Electoral  Saxony  and 
Evangelical  Germany  were  themselves  now  ripe  for  confes- 
sion. The  Gospel  found  by  Lutlier  had  been  preached  for 
more  than  a  decade,  and  had  been  thoroughly  tested  by  the 
Word,  and  by  continuous  battle,  both  with  Rome,  and  with 
all  kinds  of  radical  divergencies  and  extravagances.  What 
was  now  to  be  expected  of  the  churches  was  not  mere  personal 
and  heroic  testimony  of  individual  Reformers  (such  as 
Luther,  e.  g.,  gives  in  his  Admonition  to  the  Augsburg  Diet), 
hut  a  maturity,  an  objectivity,  and  a  calmness  of  utterance 
that  befitted  the  conrfrerjnfions,  the  earthly  representatives  of 
the  Communion  of  Saints. 

In  other  words,  the  Confession  at  Augsburg  was  intended 
by  Providence  to  be  a  Cliurch  Confession.  It  was  to  em- 
phasize the  common  Christian  doctrine,  to  bring  the  universal 
Christian  foundations  into  light,  and  to  put  the  unrighteous 
antithesis  of  the  Romish  teaching  in  as  mild  a  form  as  the 
truth  allowed. 

Xot  that  it  was  to  be  a  complete  and  exhaustive  summary 
of  doctrinal  principle.  By  its  origin  it  had  been  limited  to  a 
statement  of  "Opinions  and  Grievances,"  and  circumstances, 
divinely  ordered,  alone  enlarged  its  scope.  Its  scale  of  truth 
was  the  minimum,  for  which  the  Evangelical  cause  must 
stand ;  its  temper  was  conciliation  where  possible ;  its  method 
was  adjustment,  and  an  endeavor  to  meet  the  other  party  as 
far  as  possible.  This  in  itself,  while  it  aided  the  Confession 
as  a  mature  statement  of  the  Faith  for  the  Diet,  cut  it  off 
from  being  a  complete,  and  still  more  from  being  the  final 
Confession  of  the  Faith.''      The   "Apology,"   in  fact,   was 


■^  Its  whole  doctrinal  part,  as  Kolde  says,  is  intended  to  prove  that  Catholic 
and  Lutheran  doctrine  are  one.  The  Lutheran  doctrines  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  of  Baptism  are  treated  most  briefly.     There  is  no  rejection  of  the  remain- 


340         THE    LUTHETiAN    CONFESSIOXS. 

obliged  to  follow  right  on  its  heels,  and  to  emphasize  much 
that  had  been  depressed  in  the  Confession. 

Luther,  in  truth,  at  this  time,  did  not  believe  that  there 
would  be  a  very  earnest  attempt  bv  the  princes  to  make  a  real 
Confession,  at  a  diet  where  political  matters  would  probably 
claim  precedence.  He  also  may  have  felt  that  Philip  of 
Hesse  would  be  refractory. 

In  the  third  ])lace,  if  Luther  had  been  called  to  embody  this 
Confession  in  its  final  form,  his  open  honesty  in  stating  con- 
ditions, his  enthusiastic  ardor  for  the  truth,  and  his  violent 
and  personal  aggressiveness  against  Rome,  would  have  de- 
feated the  Elector's  hope  of  gaining  a  fair  hearing  from  the 
Emperor  for  the  Lutheran  party  he  represented.  The  Call 
to  the  Diet  did  not  itself  touch  the  heart  of  things.  It  gave 
each  party  a  right  to  appear,  but  it  made  no  promises  of  root- 
ing out  poisonous  existing  institutions.  It  looked  to  some 
possible  compromise.  ISTo  wonder  that  Luther  lacked  in  en- 
thusiasm in  preparing  a  confession  which  should  correspond 
in  mildness  to  the  terms  set  forth  in  the  Call. 

Although  the  Call  promised  that  the  error  and  division  in 
the  holy  Christian  faith  were  to  be  taken  up  and  considered, 
and  the  opinion  of  each  one  should  be  heard  in  good  will  and 
love,  and  properly  weighed,  until  true  unity  should  be  re- 
stored, "of  the  abolition  of  papal  abuses,  or  of  what  was  dan- 
gerous to  tlie  Evangelical  truth,  of  the  protection  of  those  who 
were  steadfast  in  the  true  faith,  there  was  no  word  said."  " 

That  Luther's  ''Stimme"  was  not  "leise"  will  be  seen  at 
once  when  we  come  to  examine  his  ''Address  to  the  Clergy"  at 
the  Diet.  Luther  did  not  think  it  right  to  keep  silent,  in  any 
Confession,  as  to  the  false  claiuis  of  the  Pope,  whom  he  re- 
garded as  Anti-Christ,  to  be  testified  against.    But  the  subject 


ing  sacraments  of  Rome.  Repentance  is  introduced  in  such  a  manner  that  it 
does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  its  being  a  sacrament.  Transubstantiation 
is  not  rejected,  and  the  emphasis  of  Scripture  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  is  not 
found.  The  7nain  emphasis  at  that  time  was  laid  on  the  Second  Part,  "  Of 
Abuses." 

"  SalUj,  II,  156. 


rnoviDEXCE  and  the  AUGUSTANA.   Ul 

is  ignored  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.     He  also  would  have 
treated  the  ecclesiastical  abuses  more  emphatically. 

Yet  there  was  a  last  and  practical  reason  for  taking  the 
final  form  of  the  Confession  out  of  Luther's  hand,  and  it  was 
insuperable.  What  was  more  pressing  than  all  else  was  this : 
Luther  could  not  be  at  the  Elector's  side,  and  could  not  meet 
the  situation  from  day  to  day  as  it  occurred.  Though  the 
])rincipals  felt  they  had  settled  the  details  pretty  thoroughly 
before  the  Elector's  train  left  Coburg,  Providence  was  to 
bring  about  great  changes  in  the  situation,  and  consequently 
in  the  Confession. 


THE  PATHWAY  BEHIND  AXD  BEFORE  THE  ELECTOR. 

While  the  Elector  was  passing  on  to  Augsburg,  history  was 
being  made  and  modified  on  the  other  side  of  the  Alps.  The 
Emperor,  who  had  arrived  at  Bologna  on  the  5th  of  Novem- 
ber, remained  there  four  whole  months,  and  lived  in  the  same 
palace  with  the  Pope.  Separated  only  by  a  single  partition, 
they  were  able  to  communicate  with  each  other  without  ob- 
servation at  any  time  during  the  day  or  night."*  The  Pope 
finally  succeeded  in  extorting  a  promise  from  Charles  to  sup- 
press Luther's  doctrine  and  bring  the  Lutherans  to  obedience 
to  the  Papal  curia,  first  kindly,  but  if  that  did  not  avail,  then 
by  force  of  arms.  To  this  Charles  agreed  at  his  coronation 
at  Bologna,  and  it  was  but  a  renewal  of  the  compact  made  at 
Barcelona,  which  Avas  as  follows:  Charles  and  Ferdinand 
should  lead  the  Lutherans  back  to  their  former  religion,  and 
if  they  would-  not  do  it,  compel  them  by  force  of  arms. 
Clement  should  also  i;sc  all  means  to  the  same  purpose,  and 
should  move  the  remaining  princes  to  the  accomplishment  of 
such  a  godly  work." 


*"  Cyprian,  p.  61. 

^  Spondaniis.  Narrat  Belcarius,  episcopus  Metensls,  rerum  Gallicarum  com- 
mentariis  anno  1529,  p.  m.  626.  Raynaldus  b.  a.  n.  62.  verba  foederis  refert. 
Cyprian,    49,    50. 


343         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Except  for  Mercuriuus,  the  Romanists  felt  secure.  The 
Emperor  had  thrown  the  embassadors  bearing  the  Spires 
protest  into  prison ;  he  had  on  Matthias  day  at  the  coronation 
confirmed  the  original  compact.  The  Pope's  gold  was  at  hand 
to  stir  np  all  rulers  against  the  Lutherans.  So  sure  were  the 
Romanists  of  success  that  when  the  Emperor  crossed  into 
Germany,  they  cried  out,  "Salvator  venit!"  "' 

The  Call  had  been  framed  with  all  this  in  view,  and  this 
was  the  real  Roman  object  of  the  Diet.  Erom  now  on  every 
means  was  being  used  by  the  Romanists,  and  would  soon  be 
adopted  by  the  Emperor  himself,  to  evade  that  "fair,  impar- 
tial hearing  of  every  opinion,"  and  "that  acceptance  of  every 
doctrine  that  proved  itself  to  be  really  Scriptural  and  true," 
which  had  been  promised  by  the  Emperor  in  the  Call.  The 
truth  and  import  of  all  these  events  stretching  back  of  him, 
the  Elector  could  barely  judge. 

Still  less  did  he  foresee  the  pathway  that  stretched  out  be- 
fore him  into  the  future.  First  of  all,  during  his  lengthy 
stay  at  Augsburg,  there  were  the  six  weeks  of  waiting,  from 
May  2nd  to  June  15th,  for  the  Emperor  to  appear,  and  the 
preliminary  negotiations  during  that  period  which  nerved  the 
Elector  to  his  final  stand.  Second,  there  would  thou  begin 
that  concentrated  period  of  activity  and  suspense,  during  the 
ten  days  succeeding  the  Emperor's  arrival  and  preceding  the 
presentation  of  the  Confession,  from  June  15tli  to  June  25th. 
And  third,  the  delivery  of  the  Confession  would  be  followed 
by  that  long  and  indeterminate  Summer  at  Augsburg  in 
which  the  Emperor  attempted  to  force  his  counter-proposals 
upon  the  Protestants  from  June  25th  to  the  day  in  September 
when  the  Elector  and  his  fellow  Princes  and  (/'onfessors  took 
their  dei)arture  from  the  Diet.  It  was  a  pathway  sufliciently 
rugged  to  test  the  bravery,  the  strength  and  the  endurance  of 
the  great  hero  that  the  Elector  proved  himself  to  be. 


•*  Vid.  Cyprian,  p.  54. 


I'UOVIDENCE  AND  THE  AUGUSTAN  A.  343 
May  2nd-June  loth. 

I.  Period  of  Waiting  and  Pkeparation. 

ECk's  ''  THESES,"  AND  THE  ELECTOk's  SECRET  "  CONFESSION." 

Among  the  first  tidings  to  fly  to  the  Elector's  ear  on  his 
reaching  Augsburg,  was  that  Pour  Hundred  and  Four  Theses 
against  ''those  who  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church,"  i.  e., 
against  the  Lutheran  party  of  whom  the  Elector  was  the 
head,  with  a  flaming  dedicatory  preface,  had  been  written  on 
February  10th,  and  sent  in  manuscript  to  the  Emperor  on 
March  14th.  John  Eck,  Professor  at  Ingolstadt,  had  re- 
sponded to  the  request  of  the  Bavarian  Dukes,  made  in  Janu- 
ary, when  they  heard  that  the  Emperor  would  deal  with  the 
matter  of  religion  at  the  Diet,  that  the  Ingolstadt  Faculty 
should  collect  together  "all  Articles  which  had  been  published 
by  Luther  in  the  last  twelve  years  in  one  paper,  and  show  how 
they  were  out  of  harmony  with  the  one  Christian  faith,  together 
with  the  way  in  which  they  could  be  most  profitably  refuted."  °' 
Eck  had  also  offered  to  dispute  his  positions  before  the  Em- 
peror at  the  Diet. 

This  was  a  new  and  startling  situation.  With  it  came  the 
news  that  the  Emperor  would  probably  recede  from  the 
position  of  his  Call.  The  Diet  ahead  was  no  longer  to  be  a 
calm,  free,  open  and  unbiased  deliberative  assembly,  at  which 
every  party  would  be  cordially  welcome  to  state  its  convic- 
tions and  opinions,  in  order  that,  from  a  full  consideration  of 
them  all,  the  truth  might  be  arrived  at  impartially;  but  it 
now  dawned  on  the  Elector  that  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope 
would  themselves  together  constitute  the  party  of  the  one 
part,  while  the  Lutherans  would  be  practically,  or  perhaps 
actually,  on  trial  as  defendants.  At  the  very  least,  the  pre- 
sumption was  to  be  against  them. 

But  if  Eck's  gross  calumnies  and  misrepresentations  had 


*'  Winter,   Ocsch.  d.   cv.   Lchre  in  u.   durch  Baiern,  Miinchen,    1809,    I,    270. 


344         TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

swerved  the  Emperor  from  his  orbit,  and  had  deceived  him 
as  to  tlie  real  nature  of  the  Evangelical  Faith,  which  was  not 
heretical,  or  revolutionary,  but  was  to  be  depended  upon  for 
loyalty  to  the  civil  government,  for  fidelity  to  the  one  true 
church,  and  for  opposition  to  the  fanaticism  of  the  Anabap- 
tists and  the  Sacramentarians,  it  might  still  be  possible  to 
present  to  the  Emperor  a  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Lutheran  party,  which  w^ould  convince  him  that  the  Evan- 
gelicals had  been  misrepresented.  The  Count  of  Xassau  in 
his  friendly  letter  advised  the  Elector  to  have  a  complete 
statement  on  Religion  in  Latin  or  German  delivered  to  the 
Emperor  before  the  beginning  of  the  Diet. 

If  the  Elector  could  only  get  his  own  real  personal  faith 
before  the  Emperor,  as  an  antidote  to  the  Theses  of  Eck,  his 
most  gracious  Majesty  might  even  yet  come  to  see  that  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  was  wholesome  and  true,  and  was  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  aggregation  of  old  heresies  in  which 
Eck  had  painted  it  out.  In  any  event  Eck's  Theses  could  not 
be  ignored ;  and,  besides,  the  Elector  had  some  special  per- 
sonal rights  in  this  case.  He  was  his  Majesty's  uncle,  the 
chief  marshall  of  the  realm,  entitled  to  tlie  investiture,  and 
was  tlie  chief  pillar  of  support  for  the  empire  in  all  northern 

G1  64 

rermany. 

If  Eck  could  send  in  representations  that  defamed  his 
faith,  why  should  not  the  Elector  personally  do  all  he  could 
to  disabuse  the  mind  of  Charles  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Diet? 

But  what  should  he  send  to  Charles  ?  The  Apology  in 
!Melanchthon's  hands  would  not  meet  the  doctrinal  situation 
created  by  Eck.  Xeither  did  he  feel  that  Melanchthon  or 
any  of  the  theologians  was  the  man  with  whom  he  could  coun- 


"  So  great  was  the  prestige  of  the  Saxon  Electors  that  Frederick  the  Wise 
might  have  become  the  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  But  he  declined 
the  honor,  and  used  his  influence  in  favor  of  Charles.  Cp.  Mascnius  anima 
historia,  p.  55,  quoted  by  Cyprian,  p.  24 :  lu  1519  the  Emperor  died,  and 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  pending  the  election  of  another,  became  the  imperial 
Stadthalter.  He  could  powerfully  protect  Luther,  since  he  was  the  Prince 
most  looked  up  to  in  the  Empire,  and  since  he  also  declined  the  imperial 
honor,  and  caused   it  to  be   conferred   upon  Charles   V. 


rnoVl  DEM'  E    AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.     345 

sel.  Liitlier  was  at  Cobiirg.  What  could  he  do  ?  He  had 
one  paper  that  expressed  his  faith,  viz. :  Luther's  Schwabach 
Articles.  AVithout  consulting  his  theologians,  in  secrecy,  he 
sent  the  Emperor  at  Innsbriiek  a  poor  translation  of  the 
Schwabach  Articles  as  his  own  personal"'  confession. 


HANS    BERN  S    SENSATION. 

Verily  truth  is  stranger  than  fiction.  For  these  same 
Schw^abach  Articles,  sent  Avith  so  much  secrecy  to  the  Em- 
peror as  the  Elector's  personal  confession  in  religion,  were 
now  about  to  appear  in  print  on  the  streets  of  iVugsburg  as 
the  Confession  of  Luther  himself,  which  he  would  hand  in 
at  the  Diet.  In  response  to  the  curiosity  as  to  what  state- 
ment the  Protestants  would  make  at  Augsburg,  an  enterpris- 
ing printer  at  Coburg  had  attached  Luther's  name  to  them, 
and  put  them  forth  as  the  coming  Augsburg  Confession.  Both 
Luther  and  the  Elector  must  have  been  startled  when  they 
saw  what  the  printer  Hans  Bern  had  done.  As  they  took  up 
tlie  little  quarto  leaf,  they  read  the  following  title:  "Die 
bekenntnus  Martini  Luthers  auf  den  yetzigen  angestelten 
Keichstag  zu  Augspurgk  eynzulegen.  In  siebentzehen  Artikel 
verf asset.  Im  XXX  Jar" ;  and  at  the  close,  they  saw, 
''Gedruckt  zu  Coburgk  durch  Hands  Bern.  4.  Ein  Bogen"  ** 

But  other  and  more  dangerous  eyes  soon  caught  this  title, 
and,  misled  by  the  daring  but  gratuitous  assumption  of  the 


•^  Vid.  Kiirfurst  Johannus  Glaubens  bekenntniss  vom  mai  1530.  The  original 
bears  the  endorsement.  "Artickel  vom  Churfurst  zu  Sachssen  des  glaubens 
halb."  But  compare  the  statement  of  Salig,  Hist.  Aucisp.  Cctif.,  II,  143 : 
"The  pious  Elector  John  did  nothing  in  the  matter  of  the  confederation  without 
Luther's  advice,  and  since  Luther  had  now  advised  .  .  .  that  the  differences 
of  opinions  must  show  themselves  in  the  accepting  of  certain  prescribed  articles, 
it  is  doubtless  certain  that  the  Elector  John  desired  these  Articles  from  Luther 
that  they  might  be  shown  to  the  estates  to  be  admitted  to  the  League  at  the 
Schmalkald  Convention.  He  who  accepted  these  would  become  a  part  of  the 
League.  In  this  way  they  also  bear  the  title  in  the  Archives  of  Uhn  of  Articul 
von  Chiirfursten  von  Sachsen  dcs  Glaubens  halb,  because  the  Elector  sent 
them  to  Schwabach  through  his  representatives  as  a  Symbol  of  the  Confederated 
allies." 

•"Original  found  by  Elias  Frick  in  the  Archives  at  Ulm,  and  printed  by  him 
in   the   German   Heckendurf,    p.    968. 


346         THE    LUTTIEBAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Coburg  printer,  soon  turned  it  to  practical  account.  Among 
the  Papist  theologians  were  those  of  the  Elector  Joachim, 
with  Wimpina  at  their  head ;  and  being  very  ungraciously 
disposed  toward  Luther,*'  they  took  advantage  of  this  sup- 
posed early  print  of  the  coming  Protestant  Confession  to  i)re- 
pare  and  issue  a  confutation  of  it  in  advance. 


WIMPINA  AND  T.UTHER  CT.ASH. 

Their  brief  Christian  admonition  against  the  Augsburg 
(^onfession  of  Martin  Luther  bears  the  following  title: 
'"Gegen  die  Bekenntnus  Martini  Luthers,  auf  den  yetzigen 
angestelten  Reichstag  zu  Augsspurg,  auffs  neue  eingelegt,  in 
siebenzehn  Artickel  verfasst.  Kurtze  und  Christenlich  un- 
derricht  durch  Conrad  Wimpina  Doctor,  Johann  Mensing 
Doctor,  WolfFgang  Redorffer  Doctor,  Rupert  Elgersma 
Licenci  zu  Augspurg.  1530.4."°' 

In  this  confutation  of  the  supposed  Augsburg  Confession, 
Wimpina  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  Luther  had  omitted 
many  parts  and  articles  of  his  teaching,  which,  according  to 
Wimpina,  included  revolution,  idolatry,  unchastity  and  the 
breaking  of  oaths. 

It  was  really  too  bad.  Here  was  the  Elector's  confidential 
Confession  to  the  Emperor  hawked  about  the  streets  of  Augs- 
burg, branded  as  the  work  of  the  arch-heretic  Luther,  ac- 
cepted by  the  Romanist  public  as  the  coming  Confession  of 
the  Protestant  estates,  and  vilified  by  a  Papist  reply  in  print ! 
Moreover  these  Articles,  if  their  true  history  became  kno^vn, 
would  stand  out  as  an  attempt  at  agreement  between  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Sacramentarians,  with  a  view  to  a  Protest- 
ant combination  of  estates  to  be  engineered  by  Philip  of 
Hesse.  Yet  one  of  Melanchthon's  strongest  points  in  the 
Apology  he  was  amplifying,  was  that  the  Lutherans  were 


"  Cyprian,  p.  52. 

^  Erl.    2nd    ed.    25.    344-355. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.    347 

altogether  different  from  the  Sacramentarians,  and  had  no 
sympathy  with  them. 

The  situation  was  serious ;  but  Luther  at  Coburg  was  equal 
to  it.  He  sat  down  and  wrote  a  reply  to  the  outcry  and  noise 
the  Papists  w'ere  making  over  these  Articles.  His  broadside 
bears  the  following  title:  '*Auf  das  schreyen  etlicher  Pap- 
isten  liber  die  sieben  zehn  Artickel,  Antwort  Martini  Luthers. 
Wittemberg.  Im  M.  D.  XXX  Jar.  4.  Eiu  Bogen.'"  The 
Answer  consisted  simply  of  a  reprint  of  the  Articles  them- 
selves, since  they  were  their  own  best  witness,  together  with 
a  Preface,  in  which  Luther  declares  that  he  was  not  their  sole 
author,  that  they  were  ?iot  ititended  to  he  offered  to  the  Augs- 
burg Diet,  and  that  he  had  not  desired  or  permitted  their 
publication.  After  a  dignified  introductory  paragraph,  a 
sharp  sally  at  the  Papists,  and  a  request  to  the  printer  not  to 
make  such  a  mistake  again,  he  concludes  by  asking  the  Chris- 
tian reader  to  pray  for  God's  grace  "upon  the  present  Diet, 
and  upon  the  pious,  good  Emperor  Carol,  who  is  sitting  like 
an  innocent  little  lamb  between  so  many  swine  and  dogs,  yea 
between  many  devils."  "  God  Himself  must  work  the  good  at 
the  Diet.  Otherwise  neither  the  counsel  nor  skill  of  Emperor, 
princes  or  estates  will  avail :  so  angry  and  bitter  is  the  devil. 
.  .  .  The  devil  has  it  in  mind  to  introduce  other  articles, 
which  are  horrible  to  behold.     God  help  us.     Amen." 

Thus  were  the  flames  of  falsehood  lit  at  both  ends — at  the 
Emperor's  court  en  route  and  at  Augsburg  in  prospect — 
against  the  Lutherans ;  and  the  conciliatory  document,  now 
being  so  industriously  elaborated  by  Melanchthon,  was  al- 
ready behind  the  actual  march  of  events.  The  only  consola- 
tion the  Emperor  had  in  store  for  the  Elector  in  reply  to  the 
Confession  secretly  sent  in,  was  a  sjiarp  command  that  he 
prohibit  his  ministers  from  preaching  their  Evangelical  doc- 
trine in  the  city  of  Augsburg. 


'  Cyprian,  Beil.,  p.   159  ;   Erl.   2nd  ed.   24.   337. 


348         THE   LUTHERAN    COXFESSIOXS. 

A  GULF   BEGINNING  TO  OPEN. 

We  now  have  reached  the  stage  when  it  would  soon  da^^^l 
on  all  the  little  party  at  Augsburg  (except  Melanchthon)  that 
the  abyss  between  them  and  the  Emperor  was  deep,  and  could 
not  be  crossed ;  and  that  the  original  intention  to  present  only 
an  Apology  containing  the  Torgau  statement  on  rites  and 
abuses,  and  the  rhetorical  Preface  in  praise  of  the  Emperor 
and  the  Elector  would  not  meet  the  situation.  The  foundation 
of  the  Evangelical  doctrine  had  been  attacked  in  its  main 
points.  The  Emperor  had  received  information  that  the 
Lutherans  were  heretics  throughout  the  whole  range  of  faith, 
and  they  had  been  pointed  to  as  men  who  had  renewed  the 
worst  errors  of  the  ancient  heretics  of  Christianity,  which 
was  a  far  more  serious  thing  than  the  changes  in  rites  and 
ceremonies  with  which  the  Torgau  Articles  dealt.  It  became 
necessary  to  defend  the  Lutheran  Teaching  in  every  main 
doctrine,  and  to  show  that  it  was  not  heretical.  The  mere 
Apology  would  not  suffice.  A  Confession  of  Faith  must  be 
prepared.  It  must  furnish  a  summary  of  Evangelical  doc- 
trine ;  and  by  rejecting  heresies,  must  put  a  stop  to  the  numer- 
ous slanders  which  identified  the  Lutherans  with  old-time 
heretics. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  the  Providence  of  God,  the  lying  theses 
of  John  Eck  were  the  occasion  that  brought  about  a  readjust- 
ment of  the  Elector's  intentions,  and  that  introduced,  so  far 
as  the  Articles  of  Faith  were  concerned,  a  historical  and  a 
doctrinal  character  into  the  Augsburg  Confession.  As  Eck 
had  compared  the  supposed  Lutheran  heresies  in  parallel 
columns  with  ancient  heresies  of  the  Church,  and  with  the 
teachings  of  Anabaptists  and  Evangelicals,  it  was  necessary 
now  to  demonstrate,  not  merely  that  the  Elector  was  not  es- 
tablishing a  new  Church,  or  simply  desiring  to  restore  the  old 
one  to  a  perfect  condition;  but  it  became  imperative  to  show 
that  the  Lutherans  held  strictly  and  historically  to  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  tlie  Ancient  Church,  and  that  they  ad- 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    349 

Jiered  to  the  great  ceeiiineiiical  Confessions  of  the  past,  and 
3iot  to  h.eretical  tenets  and  to  mere  figments  of  doctrine  as 
Eek  represented. 

May  3rd. 

UNFURLS  THE   FLAG   OF  THE   PURE   GOSPEL. 

The  Elector  took  a  bold  and  open  stand  in  behalf  of  his 
religion  as  soon  as  he  reached  the  city  of  Augsburg.  It  was 
not  cowardice,  or  tlie  hope  of  compromise  that  had  caused 
him  to  leave  Luther  at  Coburg.  Scarcely  had  he  arrived 
when  he  ordered  one  of  his  theologians  to  preach  daily  with 
open  doors  in  the  church  of  the  Dominicans." 

This  was  his  open  and  continuous  Confession  of  his  life 
and  faith  in  God's  Word.  It  was  his  natural  testimony  to 
the  world,  by  simply  putting  into  practice  away  from  home 
that  which  was  his  most  important  concern  at  home.  To  the 
Elector  this  preaching  was  a  very  serious  matter.  It  was 
the  essence  of  his  position. 

May  Jffli. 

Immediately  after  the  first  cares  of  his  arrival  had  been 
settled,  the  Elector  thought  of  the  lonely  man  of  God  whom 
he  had  left  behind  in  the  castle,  and  who  was  praying  for  him 
with  all  his  might.  He  could  not  refrain  from  writing  him 
a  brief  personal  letter: — 

The  Elector  to   Lupher. 

Altenberger  Ausgabe,  V,  23. 
Erl.  Br.  Wechs.,  VII,  327. 

May  4th. 

Dear  Doctor!     Take  things  easy.      Do  not  let  the  time  seem   long  to  you. 
We  are  all  very  much  concerned  for  your  bodily  health,   and   pray  God  that   He 


'"  Secfc.,  Latin,  193.  Salic/,  II,  162,  .says  "  im  Franciscayier-Closter,"  and 
"  on  the  Sunday  Jubilate  held  Evangelical  service  in  the  St.  Catharine,  the 
Virgin,    Convent." 

26 


350         THE    LUTHER  AN    00  XFES  SIGNS. 

will  long  preserve  you,  for  the  sake  of  His  dear  Word;  yea,  and  we  admonish  you 
yourself  to  take  care  of  your  health.  Z?.  Caspar,  our  physician,  is  sending  you 
medicine  with  this  messenger  to  strengthen  head  and  heart;  for  he  is  your  faithful 
friend,  and  we  also  remain  desirous  of  every  grace  for  you,  etc. 

For  eleven  days,  Luther  had  remained  in  the  castle  before 
he  heard  these  first  tidings  from  the  travelers  in  whcmi  he  was 
so  deeply  interested.  Melanchthon  also  sends  him  an  inter- 
esting letter  on  the  same  day,  full  of  the  news  the  party  heard 
when  they  came  to  Augsburg.  Xo  prince  is  here,  but  some 
theologians  have  arrived ;  Duke  George  is  on  the  way ;  the 
Emperor  himself  has  probably  reached  Innsbruck;  Cajetan 
will  perhaps  be  with  him;  Eck  has  Theses;  Xassau  has  sent 
a  friendly  letter;  the  Apology's  Introduction  is  more  elab- 
orate, and  is  almost  ready  for  Luther  to  examine. 

Mf,i,anchtho.n  to  Luther, 

Original  in  Leipzig  Stadt.  Bibliothek. 
C.  R.,  II,  38;  Erl.,  Br.,  VH,  p.  323. 

May  4th. 

To  D.  Martin   Luther,  his  E.xtr.vokdinarilv  Dear  F.-vther. 

May  it  be  well  with  you!  While  I  was  wishing  to  write  you  through  the 
messenger  of  Jonas,  your  unexpected,  but  welcome  letter  was  delivered.  Your 
friendliness  makes  us  happy,  and  we  pray  you,  despite  your  being  so  busy,  to 
write  often.  I  wrote  you  from  Nuremberg,  and  have  ordered  this  messenger  to 
ask  for  the  letter,  if  it  have  not  already  bt-en  sent  off. 

In  Augsburg  one  of  Count  Albrecht's  youths  reports  that  the  Emperor  has 
left  Trient;  and  if  we  are  not  deceived  in  our  reckoning,  he  has  already  arrived  at 
Innsbriick.  Count  Henry  of  Nassau  has  written  a  friendly  letter  to  our  Prince, 
admonishing  him  to  come  to  the  Diet  early.  Although  various  things  are  heard 
from  the  people,  we  nevertheless  still  have  good  hope  in  the  will  of  the  Emperor, 
yet  the  matter,  as  you  know,  is  in  (jod's  hands;  therefore  you  must  pray,  as  I 
know  you  are  doing. 

There  is  no  other  Prince  here  but  ours.  It  is  said  that  Duke  George  will  be 
here  in  three  days,  and  will  bring  Cochhius  with  him,  whose  name  needs  to  be 
altered  only  a  letter  or  two  to  correspond  to  the  kind  of  bird  you  wrote  us  about. 
And  Eck,  whose  name  resembles  the  cry  of  the  jackdaw,  has  put  together  a  great 
pile  of  theses. 

In  truth,  there  are  going  to  be  more  jackdaws  here  than  1  can  count.  The 
Chancellor  of  the  Hessians,  Feige,  arrived  yesterday,  and  says  his  Prince  is  on  the 
way.  Schnepf,  a  very  good  man,  and  very  friendly  disposed  toward  you,  came 
with  him;  so  that  we  have  some  hope  that  his   Prince  will   be   kept  in  the  right 


VROVlDEyV E    AND    THE    Ai'Gi'STANA.     351 

way,  although  he  does  not  conceal  the  fact  that  the  danger  is  great.  He  tells 
what  a  battle  he  had  to  endure  with  Philip  [of  Hesse]  concerning  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. He  says  the  latter  is  being  continuously  flooded  with  letters  from  the  Swiss, 
and  the  Mayor  Sturm  stirs  him  up  almost  every  month.  This  worries  me  very 
much.  Perhaps  it  would  do  good  if  you  would  write  him  to  establish  the  heart 
of  Philip  in  the  true  doctrine.      He  often  seems  to  take  offense  on  slight  occasion. 

I  have  made  the  Introduction  of  our  Apology  a  little  more  rhetorical 
than  I  wrote  it  at  Coburg.  In  a  short  time,  I  shall  either  bring  it  myself,  or 
if  the  Prince  will  not  permit  this,  I  will  send  it. 

I  have  almost  forgotten  to  number  your  Cajetan  among  the  jackdaws,  for  it 
is  said  the  Emperor  will  bring  this  fellow.  In  Nuremberg  I  heard  it  was 
Campeggius,  but  here  they  say  it  is  Cajetan.  I  wish  it  would  be  Campeggius. 
I  le  is  an  experienced  man  in  civil  affairs.  The  other  is  a  rough  and  uncouth  man 
with  whom  you  can  do  nothing.  Farewell,  and  write  again.  Wednesday  after 
Philip  and  James,  1530. 

Phi  I.I  FPUS. 


Melanchthon  has  made  some  changes  in  the  Apology  ^\llic'h 
he  does  not  write  about,  but  concerning  whicli  he  feels  that  he 
must  explain  to  Luther  personally : — 

Melanchthon  to  Veit  Dietrich. 

May  4th. 

I  will  shortly  run  over  to  you,  that  I   may  bring  to  the  Doctor  [Luther]  the 
Apology  which  is  to  be  oft'ered  to  the  Emperor,  that  he  [Luther]  may  examine  it. 

]\relanchthon  knew  of  the  presentations  of  Eck,  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  he  appreciated  the  seriousness  of  the 
change  in  the  situation  at  the  imperial  court,  until  after  the 
following  Sunday.  The  Elector  himself  was  doubtless  hoping 
that  the  sending  of  his  personal  Confession,  showing  the  true 
Lutheran  teaching,  would  make  all  things  right.  The  letters 
fo  Luther  were  written  on  Thursday.  Friday  and  Saturday 
passed,  and  then  came  the  first  Sunday  in  Augsburg. 

:\la\j  Sill,  Sunday. 

The  Elector  had  preaching  in  the  Church  of  St.  Catharine. 
"He  has  j^reaching  every  day  here,   and  large  numbers  at- 


353         THE    LUTILEIIAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tend."  "  To  ottVet  the  ofFoct  of  the  Protestant  preaching, 
the  surprised  Bishop  of  Augsburg  appointed  several  of  his 
priests  to  the  same  work  in  the  pulpit,  but  they  were  unsuc- 
cessful/" In  anger"  thev  complained  to  Charles,  and  the 
result  was  Charles'  sharp  order  to  stop  preaching.  It  was 
his  first  official  word.  The  Romanists  now  told  the  Protes- 
tants that  the  Emperor  would  crush  them — " Evangelicas 
omnes  ohfrilunnn."  " 


MELATs^CTITHON    WORKING    ON     TUE    APOLOGY. 

Three  more  days  passed,  and  the  first  Aveek  at  Augsburg 
was  gone.  The  tidings  as  to  Eck's  theses,  and  the  Emperor's 
more  unfavorable  attitude,  had  compelled  our  party  to 
change  the  plan  of  their  religious  document,  and  to  embrace 
in  it  their  teaching  on  all  essentials  of  doctrine.  Despite 
Luther's  avowal  as  to  them,  the  Elector's  favorite  Schwabacli 
Articles  were  fallen  back  upon,  and  IMelanchthon's  pen  was 
most  busy  during  this  week  in  incorporating  the  new  ma- 
terial, as  we  can  easily  imagine  when  we  recall  what  it  meant 
to  transform  the  Electoral  Apology  into  a  Confession  contain- 
ing all  the  doctrines  of  faith.  '^I  have  embraced  nearly  all 
the  Articles  of  Faitli,  for  Eck  has  put  forth  the  most  diabol- 
ical slanders  against  us." 

May  nth. 


By  the  middle  of  the  week.  May  lltli,  the  Apology,  revised 
and  developed  into  a  Confession,"  was  again  completed  in  the 
eyes  of  the  little  Electoral  party  at  Augsburg.     The  Confes- 


"  Taglich  in  dt^n  Kirchen  unverstort ;  dazu  kommt  sehr  viel  Volks. — C.  B., 
II,  53. 

"  C.  R.,  II,  8G. 

''"Scultet.,   271. 

"  Ih.,  269. 

"  Sleidanus  in  his  seventh  book  calls  it  the  Saxon  Confeission,  and  Cyprian 
reports  that  this  Saxon  Apology  was  sent  to  Luther  on  May  11th  without 
realizing  what  we  now  know  as  to  the  content  of  this  Confession. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    353 

sion  shows  that  Melanchthoii,  in  selecting  the  material,  had 
his  eve  upon  Eck's  Articles,  and  that  Melanchllum  was  par- 
ticularly anxious  to  show  that  the  Elector  was  uo  heretic,  and 
had  no  connection  with  the  heretics  of  earlier  ages.  The 
Confession  is  not  to  be  offered  to  the  Emperor  without  first 
having  been  forwarded  to  Luther,  who  was  the  final  authority. 

But  tidings  of  the  Em|)eror's  coming  were  expected  any 
day.  The  business  recpiired  haste.  Melanchthon  would  write 
a  personal  letter  to  Luther  with  all  explanations;  and  the 
Elector  would  send  the  document  with  instructions  that 
Luther  nudve  his  emendations  in  the  margin  of  the  document 
itself,  so  (doubtless)  that  tlie  text  would  be  final  as  it  came 
from  Luther's  hand,  and  perhaps,  if  the  case  should  be  urgent, 
the  paper  might  be  handed  in  as  revised,  without  the  loss  of 
time  in  re-writing  and  incorporating  Luther's  corrections. 

The  Elector  also  desired  an  Opinion  from  Luther  on  what 
proved  to  be  the  great  test  question  of  the  Diet — the  one  by 
which,  in  our  judgment,  apart  from  the  Confession,  the  Elec- 
tor won  the  cause  for  Protestantism. 

Melanchthon  to  Luther  at   Coburg 
When  the  Elector  Sent  Luther  the  Augsburg  Confession  for  Revision. 

Original  in  the  Hof  and  Staatsbibliothek  in  Munich. 
Printed  in  Mel.  Kpp.,  I,  18 ;  C.  R.,  II,  45. 

May  nth. 

To  D.  Martin  Luther,  his  Very  Dear  Father. 

Greeting!  Our  Apology  is  being  sent  you,  but  in  truth  it  is  rather  a  Con- 
fession. For  the  Emperor  has  not  time  to  listen  to  lengthy  disputations.'^  Yet  I 
have  said  that  which  I  believed  most  useful  or  proper.  On  this  ground  I  have 
succinctly  given  nearly  all  the  Articles  of  Faith,  since  Eck  has  circulated  the  most 
Satanic  slanders  against  us.  Over  against  these,  I  wished  to  oppose  a  remedy. 
Please  give  judgment  on  the  whole  writing  according  to  your  spirit. 

Duke  George  and  Margrave  Joachim  have  gone  on  to  meet  the  Emperor 
Now  a  Diet  will  be  held  iiber  unsern  Hals.  Therefore  pray  God  to  bring  the 
counsel  of  the  heathen  to  nought.    (Ps.  33:10.) 

A  question  is  referred  to  you,  to  which  I  greatly  desire  an  answer  from  you. 
Beyond  doubt  the  Emperor  will  prohibit  the  Zwinglian  sermons.     We  judge  from 


"  I.  e.,  such  as   Eck'.s  Theses  would  introduce,  and  we  have  therefore  placed 
our  doctrine,  compactly  and  quietly,  into  this  Apology. 


354         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

this,  that  under  this  pretence  our  sermons  will  also  be  forbidden,  for  Eisleben  is 
already  preaching  publicly  in  a  church.  Now  what  is  your  opinion?  Is  not  the 
preaching  in  a  public  place  to  be  given  up,  in  case  the  Emperor  desires  this:  if  he 
should  wish  this  in  order  that  the  Zwinglian  preaching  might  also  be  prevented 
without  disturbance  ?  I  have  answered:  one  must  yield  to  the  will  of  the  Em- 
peror, in  whose  city  we  now  are  guests.  But  our  old  man  is  difficult  to  soften. 
What  therefore  you  think,  I  beg  that  you  will  write  it  in  German  on  separate 
paper.     Please  answer  concerning  this  matter. 

We  reckon  that  the  Emperor  cannot  arrive  within  fourteen  days.  In  such  a 
great  divergency  of  opinions  it  is  not  possible  to  judge  what  can  be  hoped  for  from 
the  deliberations  of  the  Emperor,  but  we  await  help  from  Christ.      Eisleben  greets. 

PuiLirrus, 


The  Elector's  letter  points  clearly  to  the  "Articles  of  Ke- 
ligion"  drawn  up  at  \Vittenl)crg  at  the  Elector's  command  as 
the  basis  of  the  Confession : — 


The  Elector  John  at  Augsburg  to  Luther. 

Asking  Luther's  Opinion  of  the  Confession  Worked  Over  by  Melanchthon. 

Original    in    the   Weimar    Gesammt-Archiv. 

Printed  in  Wittenb.  ed.,  1569,  IX,  Bl.  405  b;  C.  R.,  II,  45,  47. 

May  nth. 
John  sc. 

First  of  all  our  Greeting,  Honorable,  Learned  and  Devout  [Friend]  !  After 
you  and  our  other  learned  men  at  Wittenberg  had,  at  our  gracious  thought  and 
desire,  made  a  draught  of  the  Articles  of  Religion  concerning  which  there  is  now 
strife,  it  is  our  wish  to  let  you  know  that  Melanchthon  has  further  revised  the 
same,  and  drawn  them  up  into  a  Form,  which  we  are  sending  you  herewith. 

And  it  is  our  gracious  desire  that  you  would  feel  free  to  further  consider  and 
revise  the  same  Articles;  and,  where  you  deem  it  wise  and  well  to  take  away  or 
to  add  anything,  please  do  so  in  the  margin.  Send  back  the  same  carefully  secured 
and  sealed,  without  delay,  that  we  may  be  ready  and  prepared  for  the  arrival  of 
his  imperial  Majesty,  whom  we  expect  in  a  short  time. 

We  also  desire  you  to  know  that  our  representatives  at  the  imperial  court  at 
Innsbriick  have  written  that  it  is  the  plan  to  deal  with  us  on  the  arrival  of  his  im- 
perial Majesty,  that  we  should  not  permit  preaching  in  the  churches,  as  we  have 
begun  it.  This  you  will  infer  from  the  enclosed  statement.  And  although  I  have 
drawn  up  an  Opinion  on  this  subject,  yet  I  wish  your  further  opinion,  that  we 
may  do  right  in  the  sight  of  God  and  our  conscience.  In  this  you  will  do  our 
gracious  pleasure.     .     .     .     Wednesday  after  Jubilate,  A.  D.,  1530. 

To  Dr.  Martin. 


PROVIDE XCE   AND    THE   AUGU:STANA.    355 

As  to  the  Protestant  preaching,  Melanchthon  was  eager 
from  first  to  last,  that  is  from  May  11th  to  June  20th,  that  it 
cease.  He  was  eager  to  please  the  Emperor  and  Rome,  and 
he  did  not  realize  that  on  this  point,  viz.,  of  the  Protestants' 
right  to  clear  public  testimony  of  one's  faith  according  to 
one's  conscience,  the  whole  battle  for  Protestant  liberty  at 
Augsburg  would  be  fought.  Xeither  did  he  see  that  cora- 
})romise  on  this  small  point  meant  the  extinction  of  Protest- 
antism. The  means  he  used  to  oppose  the  Elector's  decision 
were  perhaps  characteristic.  There  is  a  marked  contrast  be- 
tween his  letter  and  that  of  the  Elector  in  alluding  to  the 
issue.  Melanchthon  puts  his  o^vn  wish  into  Luther's  heart, 
and  then  asks  Luther  to  write  back  in  German,  and  on  a  sep- 
aralc  paper,  so  that  he  can  show  Luther's  words  to  "the  old 
man  Avho  is  difficult  to  soften."  The  Elector  states  that  he 
has  formed  his  Opinion,  and  does  not  reveal  it ;  but  says,  "I 
wish  your  Opinion,  that  ^\e  may  do  right  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  our  conscience." 


WHAT   COXFESSIOX   DID  LUTHER   SEE  OX   MAY    IItH  ? 

What  Luther  received  with  the  letters  of  the  11th  of  May 
was  the  Elector's  Confession.  It  contained  a  Preface  in 
praise  and  defence  of  the  Elector,  the  Articles  of  Faith,  re- 
cently introduced  on  account  of  Eck's  attack,  and  the  Articles 
on  Abuses.  Its  most  striking  fact  is  that  the  whole  document 
centres  in  and  revolves  about  John  of  Saxony,  somewhat  after 
the  substance  and  form  of  Luther's  Opinion  of  the  preceding 
year  at  Rotach,  as  to  "what  should  be  said  to  the  Emperor." 
The  Elector's  name  is  found  in  the  first  line  of  the  Preface, 
and  he  and  what  he  has  done  are  mentioned  in  almost  every 
paragraph  of  the  Preface.  The  Articles  of  Faith  are  intro- 
duced as  follows:  "Xow  we  will  speak  of  the  doctrine,  and 
first  of  all  recount  all  the  most  important  Articles  of  Faith, 
that  his  Majesty  may  perceive  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
has  not  permitted  anything  unchristian  to  be  preached  in  his 


35G         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

dominiou,  but  has  diligently  lic4d  to  the  common  pure  Chris- 
tian faith." 

The  Second  Part  on  Abuses  reads  as  follows: — 

''Since  Electoral  Saxony  has  not  varied  from  the  Scripture 
or  from  the  common  Christian  Churches  in  any  Article  of 
Faith,  but  has  simply  abolished  certain  abuses."  . 
This  Apology-Confession  was  by  no  means  a  Romanizing 
document — unless  the  completed  Augsburg  Confession  of 
June  25th  is  to  be  regarded  as  such — though  it  was  as  irenic 
and  as  particularistic  as  possible.  It  was  the  final  Confes- 
sion "im  Werden,"  more  and  more  unfolding  its  own  inner 
strength,  and  more  and  more  transforming  itself  from  an 
Electoral  Apology  to  an  Evangelical  Confession. 

Luther  was  a  born  Confessor,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  his 
reply  to  the  Elector  expresses  his  exact  feelings."  As  the 
Elector  s  Confession,  he  was  very  much  pleased  with  it — 
Melanchthon  had  expressed  the  Electoral  situation — ;  but  for 
his  own  Confession — as  the  Confession  of  a  Minister  of  the 
Gospel  or  of  the  Churches — it  was  treading  too  softly. 

"We  base  our  judgment,  as  to  what  Luther  saw,  on  the  docu- 
ment delivered  to  the  Xurembergcrs,  two  weeks  later;  for 
while  changes  w^ere  going  on  in  this  Apology-Confession  be- 
tween the  lltli  and  the  25th,  they  could  not  have  been  of  a 
more  or  less  Romanizing  or  particularizing  character  between 
those  two  dates,  nor  were  they  other  than  in  the  line  of  a  more 
normal  unfolding. 

As  to  the  difference  between  the  Apology-Confession  sent 
to  Luther  on  May  11th,  known  to  us  as  of  May  25th,  and  the 
final  form  of  June  25th,  we  know  that  Articles  XX,  on  Faith 
and  Good  Works,  and  XXI,  on  the  Worship  of  the  Saints, 
were  then  yet  missing;  that  Articles  XXVII  and  XXVIII 
had  not  assumed  their  final  form ;  that  nothing  is  positively 
ascertained  as  to  the  nature  of  the  detailed  changes  Melanch- 
thon was  making  in  the  text ;  that  sometime  after  the  opening 


'''' Cp.  Kolde  in  Herzog-Hauck :  "Despite  the  ironical  play  on  Melanchthon's 
•well-known  efforts  never  to  give  offense,  .  .  .  Luther  desired  in  this  remark 
to  express  his  complete  agreement." 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.    357 

of  the  Diet  on  the  15th  of  June,  Melanchthon  had  cast  the 
Confession  aside  as  probably  never  to  be  nsed,  nntil  he  was 
compelled  to  take  it  np  again  the  following  week,  and  that 
then  his  private  judgment  was  no  longer  consulted  as  to  what 
should  be  finally  altered  or  added. 

As  to  Melanchthon's  part  in  the  w^ork,  we  may  say  that  his 
judgment  was  bad,  and  his  skill  great.  He  was  a  wretched 
designer  and  an  exquisite  modeler.  As  Kolde"  says: 
''Nothing  un-Lutheran,  much  less  Melanchthonian,  entered 
the  Confession — as  has  been  supposed — through  the  various 
changes  undertaken  by  j\Ielanchthon,  which  would  not  have 
been  agreeable  to  Luther  if  he  had  been  able  to  observe  them 
in  detail ,  most  of  all,  because  he  was  never  sympathetically 
disposed  toward  such  changes,  and  they  assuredly  greatly 
concealed  the  antithesis,'"  and  there  is  not  a  little  which  he 
would  have  expressed  more  sharply."  As  for  the  result,  we 
may  be  thankful  that  ]\[elanchthon  rounded  out  into  objective 
principle,  and  moulded  into  classic  form  the  aspirated  edges 
of  Luther's  teaching,  and  Briick  braced  up  the  inner  weak- 
ness of  Melanchthon's  principles;  while,  later  on,  the 
Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  the  Fonnula  of  Con- 
cord completed  such  teaching  as  was  not  thoroughly  wrought 
out  at  Augsburg. 

May  12th. 

THE   KNIGHT    MILITANT    OF   THE   REFORMATION   ARRIVES. 

The  post  had  scarcely  left  Augsburg  with  the  two  letters 
and  the  Confession  for  Luther,  before  Philip  of  Hesse,  the 
Knight  Militant  of  the  Reformation,  who  was  not  expected 
at  this  Diet,  since  he  had  no  heart*"  for  the  Emperor's  plan, 
and  since  also  he  had  failed  to  unite  Luther  and  Zwingli  at 


".4».  Red.,  p.   75. 
'»  "  Den   Gegensatz." 

*"  "  Der    weitblickendp    Landgraf    von    Hessen    blieb    auch    jetzt    argwohnisch 
tind  schwankte." — Kolde. 


358         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Marburg,  came  marching  into  the  gates  of  Angsbnrg  with  an 
escort  of  one  Imndred  and  ninet}'  horsemen." 

Ma7j  13th,  Friday. 

Kestive  Philip  could  not  remain  many  hours  in  the  im- 
perial city  before  involving  himself  in  some  sensation.  And 
sure  enough,  the  next  day  he  opened  the  gates  of  the  Cathe- 
dral," and  his  theologian  Schnepf  preached  tlie  Protestant 
doctrine  there.  Later  in  the  season,  Philip  had  preaching 
every  day  in  the  Church  of  St.  Ulrich. 

On  the  same  day  also  Duke  Frederick  of  Saxony,  Duke 
George's  prince,  came  with  Prince  Joachim  of  Anhalt  and 
many  horsemen,  wliile  the  Elector  Joachim  of  Brandenburg, 
Duke  George  of  Saxony  and  Duke  William  of  Bavaria  went 
on  towards  the  Emperor  to  Tnnsbrlick.*^ 

May  15ih. 


LUTHEK     llflKS    TO    KESPOXD    TO    AXD    CONSOLE    THE    ELECTOR. 

]\leantiuie  the  two  letters,  and  the  Confession,  had  reached 
Luther,  and  his  reply  was  ])i-ompt — too  prompt  and  brief  no 
doubt  to  please  the  small  party  at  Augsburg.  He  had  no 
emendations  to  offer.  lie  was  pleased  ;  but  it  was  not  after 
liis  style  to  confess  so  softly. 

However,  he  did  not  know  that  the  crisis  now  closely  im- 
pending would  rub  out  some  of  the  softness,  and  that  the 
Lord  Himself  w<tul(l  bi'iug  about  some  emendations,  before 
the  Confession  was  ])ut  forth. 

Luther's  Rei'i.v  to  thk  Elector,  Concernixc  the  Confession. 

Original   in   the  Weimar  Gesammt-Archiv. 

Printed   in   Wittenb.   ed.    1569,   XI,    Bl.    40C ;    Er.    LIV,    145. 

May  J^tlt. 
Grace  and  Peace  in  Christ  our  Lord!     ...      I  have  read  over  the  Apology 
of  M.  Philip.      It  pleases  me  right  well,  and  I   do  not  know  what  to  improve  or 

"  SaXig,   II,   162,  .says,   "  Mit   120   cuirassiers." 

»-  "  In  the  chapter  of  St.  Moritz." Au</sb.  Ev.  KircUen-chronica. 

"2  i<any,  II,  162. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.    359 

change  in  it;  neither  would  it  be  proper,  for  I  cannot  tread  so  gently  and  quietly. 
Christ  our  Lord  help  that  it  bear  much  and  great  fruit,  as  we  hope  and  pray. 
Amen.     On  Sunday  Cantate,  in  the  year  1530.     .     .     . 

E.  K.  F.  G., 

Obediently, 

Martinus  Luther. 


Tlie  perilous  test  question  of  the  Diet,  whether  the  Pro- 
testants should  preach  their  doctrine  in  the  city  of  Augsburg 
during  the  Emperor's  presence,  had  been  referred  to  Luther 
for  advice,  and  now  on  this  very  day  (May  15th),  when 
Luthor  is  writing  his  reply,  and  the  Elector  and  Melanchthon 
are  eagerly  awaiting  it,  Philip  of  Hesse  rushes  them  all  to 
the  verge  of  ruin  by  commanding  Cellarius,  a  ZwingUan,  of 
Augsburg,  to  preach  in  the  Cathedral! 

The  wise  Elector  had  seized  on  this  liberty  of  preaching 
as  the  one  serious  initial  problem.  Any  utterance  from  the 
other  side,  concerning  it,  would  be  the  tirst  indication  of  the 
imperial  mind  as  to  how  it  intended  to  deal  with  the  Evan- 
gelical cause,  and  as  to  whether  the  promises  of  fairness  to 
all  parties,  made  in  the  Call,  would  really  be  redeemed.  The 
disjiatches  from  the  Emperor's  Court  were  full  of  rumors  to 
the  effect  that  the  Emperor  had  shifted  his  position.  Chan- 
cellor Briick  and  the  Elector,  recognizing  the  test  character  of 
this  question,  and  the  unfavorableness  of  a  prohibitive  omen, 
took  a  more  stubborn  stand  against  yielding  the  cause  in 
advance  than  did  Melanchthon  or  Luther  under  the  influence 
of  Melanchthon's  suggestion.  Luther,  on  the  hypothesis  of 
the  Emperor's  guilelessness,  replied  on  the  15th  that  he  would 
like  to  have  his  Majesty  dissuaded  from  this  prohibition  and 
induced  to  send  some  one  to  hear  what  is  really  being 
preached ;  but  if  that  prove  of  no  avail,  one  must  allow  force 
to  take  the  place  of  right,  for  Augsburg  is  an  imperial  city. 

May  20tli. 

Luther's  reply  of  May  15th  to  the  Elector  had  been  very 
brief;    and,    on   reflection,    he    may    have    felt    that    in    this 


360         TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

trying  hour  he  had  not  given  the  Elector  that  hearty  sympa- 
thy and  support  which  "the  old  man"  truly  deserved.  At  all 
events,  live  days  later,  Luther  again  wrote  the  Elector,  and 
this  time  a  longer  and  hearty  letter  of  encouragement. 

Chytriius  puts  the  occasion  of  this  letter  as  follows:  Since 
his  Majesty  was  delaying  his  coming,  and  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  was  deeply  agitated  not  only  because  of  his  vexation 
at  the  lengthy  delay,  but  also  because  of  the  threatening  and 
the  terrifying  attitude  of  the  enemies,  who  assured  them- 
selves of  certain  victory  when  his  Majesty  arrived,  Luther 
wrote  the  Elector  a  comforting  and  lovely  letter: — 

Luther  to  the  Elector, 

MS.  In  Wolfenbuttel. 

FJaciua  Deutscher  Br.,  Altenburg,  V,  23;  Erl.,  LIV,  146. 

Mav  2oth. 

It  is  indeed  a  glorious  and  great  honor  that  God  has  chosen  His  gracious 
Prince,  who  has  devoted  everything  to  Clod's  service,  and  that  His  holy  Word  is 
not  only  not  abused,  but  supported  and  upheld.  It  is  also  immaterial  that  some 
of  us  feel  depressed  about  the  situation;  only  let  your  Grace  continue  in  the  fur- 
therance and  protection  of  the  work  in  maintaining  the  Word. 

May  your  princely  Highness  graciously  receive  my  letter.  God  knows  that 
I  speak  the  truth  and  do  not  dissemble;  for  it  pains  me  that  Satan  could  cause 
concern  and  st)rrow  in  your  gracious  heart.  I  know  him  well,  and  realize  how 
he  tries  to  have  me  play  with  him. 

Hence  it  is  the  duty  of  us  all  to  loyally  stand  by  his  princely  Highness  with 
prayer,  comfort,  love,  which  we  always  can;  for  when  your  (!race  is  happy  we 
live,  but  when  you  are  sorrowful  we  are  sick. 

But  may  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  Whom  the  Father  of  all  grace 
has  so  freely  revealed  and  offered  for  us,  send  your  Grace,  alcove  all  my  words, 
His  Holy  Spirit,  the  true  eternal  Comforter,  and  uphold,  strengthen  and  preserve 
your  Grace  against  all  the  poisonous  fiery  darts  of  a  sour,  heavy,  fearful  spirit. 
Amen,  beloved  God,  Amen.      Given  May  20th,  1530. 

E.  K.  F.  G., 

Obediently, 

Martin  Luther. 

May  imh. 

THE    EMPEROR    SETS    UP    COURT    AT    IXXSERt'CK. 

,     And  now  al)out  a  fortnifflit  after  the  Elector  reached  Aiiffs- 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    361 

burg,  the  Enii)eror,  ^vith  Fei'diuand  and  the  queens  of  Hun- 
gary and  Bohemia ;  the  embassadors  of  France,  England  and 
Portugal ;  with  Campeggius,  the  Papal  Legate,  and  other 
cardinals;  the  Spanish  nobles  and  many  princes  from  Italy 
and  Germany,  entered  Innsbriick,  and  settled  down  to  study 
and  master  the  religious  situation  in  Germany. 

Italian  gold  was  freely  scattered  to  gain  the  German  favor. 
The  court  was  split  into  a  Poman  and  a  Protestant  party. 
The  Pomanists  urged  his  ]\lajesty  to  stand  by  tlie  edict  of 
Worms  and  condeum  the  Evangelicals  without  a  hearing.'* 
Campeggius  advised  even  the  inquisition,  confiscation  of 
property,  and  punishment   with  fire  and  sword. 

The  Evangelical  cause  had  a  defender  in  the  person  of  the 
imperial  chancellor,  ]\Iercuriniis  Gattinara.  Althongh  he 
was  ill,  he  had  managed  to  follow  the  court  of  the  EmperoT 
to  Innsbruck  in  order  1o  neutralize  the  influence  of  Campeg- 
gius. "There  is  nothing  I  desire  so  much,"  he  is  said  to  have 
declared,  "as  to  see  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  his  allies 
persevere  courageously  in  the  profession  of  the  Gospel,  and 
call  for  a  free  religious  Council.  If  they  allow  themselves  to 
be  checked  by  promises  or  tlireats,  I  hesitate  myself  and  I 
doubt  of  the  means  of  salvation."  '* 


GEORGE  AND  JOACIIIJ^I  AVOID  AUGSBURG,  AND  RIDE  ON  TO 
INNSBRUCK. 

The  Elector  John,  the  chief  of  the  princes,  and  the  first  of 
them  to  arrive  at  Augsburg,  had  courageously  begun  preach- 
ing ;  and  when  the  Roman  princes,  Duke  George  of  Saxony, 
Duke  William  of  Bavaria  and  the  Elector  Joachim,  heard 
that  John  was  preaching  the  Evangelical  faith  at  Augsburg, 
filled  with  consternation,  they  passed  Augsburg  by,   as  w^e 


«*  C.  R.,  IT,   57. 

*^  Instructio   data   Caesari    dal   Reverendissimo   Campeggio. — Ranke,   III,    288. 

^"Seck.,  II,  57. 


362         THE   LUTHER  Ay    COXFESSIONS. 

haA-e  seen,  and  proceeded  direct  to  the  court  of  Charles,  re- 
porting that  the  Elector  John  had  ulterior  designs,  and  offer- 
ing the  Emperor  a  guard  of  six  thousand  horse/ 

The  false  news  thus  brought  to  Innsbriick  led  to  repeated 
conferences  there  as  to  what  to  do.  Melanchthon,  alluding  to 
these,  declared  that  there  was  a  Diet  now  being  held  at  Inns- 
briick on  the  best  way  of  getting  the  heads  of  the  Evangel- 
icals. Mercurinus  finally  succeeded  in  persuading  Charles 
to  remain  neutral. 

THE    ELECTOR    INVITED    TO    INNSBRUCK. 

Yet  Charles  was  determined  to  avoid  the  free  religious 
discussion  he  had  promised  for  Augsburg.  If  the  matter 
could  be  quashed  in  advance,  it  might  not  be  necessary  for 
him  to  enter  Augsburg  at  all,  and  he  could  proceed  direct  to 
Cologne  and  have  Ferdinand  crowned.  What  should  he  do? 
His  first  recourse  was  a  })ressing  invitation  to  the  Elector 
John  to  come  from  Augsburg  to  Innsbriick,  where  he  would 
receive  the  Emperor's  particular  favor,  and  wliere  they  uiiglit 
personally  confer  together  concerning  the  religious  situation. 
It  w-as  a  slirewd  move  to  draw  the  Elector  away  from  his  base, 
and  to  cut  off  the  legal,  moral,  political  and  personal  strength 
(liat  base  assurccl  hiui. 

But  Briick  and  the  Elector  instinctively  reali/.ed  tliat  to 
yield  in  this  or  any  point  would  lie  fatal ;  and  sent  back  word 
that  it  was  not  proper  to  discuss  the  business  of  the  Diet  in 
any  other  jilace  than  that  which  the  Emperor  himself  had  aji- 
pointed.  and  therefore  begged  that  his  ^lajesty  would  hasten 
his  arrival  at  the  city  where  the  Diet  should,  ere  this,  have 
been  convened.  Doltzig  presented  the  following  grounds  why 
John  could  not  couie:  1.  Because  the  Elector's  departure 
would  only  awaken  sus])i('ion  in  those  remaining.  2.  Because 
the  liarmonv  and  mutual  confidence  of  the  other  estates  might 


"Seek.,  II,  156.  Salig,  following  Augsb.  Ev.  Kirchcn-Chroii..  says  "filled 
the  Emperor  with  all  kinds  of  suspicion  because  of  the  early  arrival  of  the 
Elector." 


PEOVIDEXCE    AXD    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.    363 

thereby  be  disturbed.  3.  Beeaitse  in  affairs  of  the  realm  no 
valid  action  could  be  taken  outside  of  the  Diet.'*  Doltzig's 
presentation  was  received  graciously  by  the  Emperor. 

It  was  a  bold  but  rightful  declaration  of  independence  from 
the  Emperor's  shifting  program  of  manipulation,  by  asserting 
dependence  on  the  Emperor's  original  plan  and  promise,  and 
by  insisting  on  the  stable  law  of  the  realm.  The  Elector's 
position  was  sound.  The  situation  Avas  now  in  bloom,  all 
Augsburg  was  full  of  newly-arrived  soldiers,  and  the  flower 
of  the  German  nation,  princes,  no])ility  and  warriors,  were 
to  be  seen  together  here  in  this  one  city. 

May  19th-22nd. 

A    :NKW    KEVISION    of    the    COXFESSIOX    for    LUTHER. 

It  is  possible  that  the  Confession,  returned  by  Luther  on 
the  15th  with  his  reply,  arrived  in  Augsburg  on  the  19th. 
On  the  20th  he  wrote  his  second  and  longer  letter  to  the  Elec- 
tor; and  by  the  22nd  Melanchthon  was  ready  to  send  Luther 
the  Confession  a  second  time  with  the  changes  that  had  been 
nuide  in  the  last  ten  days,  together  with  various  items  of  start- 
ling news  from  the  imperial  Court  at  Innsbruck,  whence  the 
Emperor  was  not  disposed  to  come  to  Augsburg. 

The  changes  in  the  Confession  that  were  made  between  the 
10th  and  the  22nd,  though  continuous,  were  not  material  as 
to  doctrine.  It  Avas  the  Elector's  personal,  and  not  the  con- 
fessional situation  that  now  was  uppermost.  At  all  events, 
we  may  be  sure  that  Melanchthon  in  his  letter  of  the  22nd 
mentioned  all  the  most  unporiant  changes  in  the  Confession. 
It  is  maintained  by  some  that  Luther  never  received  this  let- 
ter, and  the  revised  Form  of  Confession.  This  point  will  be 
discussed  a  little  later. 


^^  Salig,  II,  162. 


3G4    THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Melanchthon  to  Luthkr. 

Manuscript  in  MS.  Maiiliaimm,  p.  15. 

Printed  in  Melanchtlion's  epp.  lib  ,  I,  ep.  2;  ed.  Lond.,  I,  ep.  2;  Colestin,  I,  p.  44 
(incomplete);  C.  R.,  II,  p.  59;  Erl.  Br.-W.,  VH,  p.  342;  German,  Chytriius,  Hist.,  p.  62  (in 
part);  and  Wilhelm  a  Vallo,  II,  b.  p.  66. 

A/aj'  22nd. 

1.  Hail!  We  had  already  hired  a  messenger,  who  was  to  start  for  your 
place  and  thence  for  Wittenberg,  for  Jonas  learned  of  the  death  of  his  son  from 
the  letters  of  Viola.  But  while  writing  I  received  your  letters  through  D.  Apel's 
messengers.     Jonas  is  content  since  he  learned  that  his  wife  is  well. 

2.  The  Emperor  is  not  yet  here,  and,  it  appears  to  me,  will  scarce  arrive 
ere  Pentecost.  He  has  drawn  neither  the  Dukes  of  Baiern  nor  the  Duke  of 
Saxony  into  consultation  about  the  religious  affairs,  for  he  wants  to  remain  impar- 
tial. It  is  reported  that  there  are  two  opinions  in  the  Emperor's  council:  one, 
that  he  should  not  hear  the  Lutherans,  but  have  them  speedily  condemned  in 
a  public  decree;  the  other,  that  he  should  hear  them  regularly  and  remove  the 
abuses  of  the  Church.  This  latter  is  said  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  imperial  chan- 
cellor Mercurinus,  an  exemplary  and  very  reasonable  man,  who  is  reported  as 
saying  that,  in  his  weakness,  he  followed  the  Emperor,  ina.smuch  as  he  thought 
that  the  religious  matters  would  end  well,  and  consequently  he  would  not  be  par- 
ticipating in  compulsory  measures.  We  have  heard  nothing  here  which  we  think 
more  worthy  to  communicate.  And  I  myself  have  a  special  admiration  for  this 
utterance  and  judgment  of  this  very  sensible  man.  May  Christ  be  with  us  and 
support  us,  and  so  rule  all  counsels  that  they  may  serve  for  peace  and  the  general 
welfare.  Mercurinus  has  also  said  this:  "The  Diet  of  Worms  proved  that 
nothing  substantial  can  be  accomplished  with  compulsory  measures."  For  he  was 
at  Worms  in  the  Emperor's  retinue  and  council. 

All  of  us,  the  Elector  too,  are  much  concerned  about  your  health;  and  have 
therefore  prayed  God  that  He  preserve  you  for  the  sake  of  His  Word.  We  also 
request  that  you  take  good  care  of  your  health.  Doctor  Caspar  sends  you, 
through  the  Elector's  messenger,  different  medicines  which  strengthen  head  and 
heart.     For  he  loves  you  much. 

3.  In  the  Apology,  we  daily  change  many  things.  The  article  on  Vows, 
as  it  was  more  meagre  than  it  should  be,  I  have  removed,  and  supplied  its  place 
with  a  complete  discussion.  I  am  now  treating  of  the  Power  of  the  Keys.  I  wish 
you  had  examined  the  Articles  of  Faith  ;  if  you  shall  have  found  in  them 
nothing  wanting,  we  will  treat  the  remaining  ones  quite  extensively.  For  we 
must  change  them  from  time  to  time,  and  adapt  them  to  the  occasion. 

4.  The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  now  publicly  says  that  he  w^ill  subscribe  our 
address,  and  it  seems  that  he  could  easily  be  brought  to  our  side;  but  to  do  so,  it 
is  necessary  for  you  to  write  to  him.  Hence  I  most  earnestly  request  you  to  write 
to  the  Landgrave  and  admonish  him  not  to  burden  his  conscience  by  defending  a 
false  doctrine.  I  wish  you  would  not  write  again  to  the  younger  prince;  for  he 
now  hates  no  one  more  than  you,  whom  he  formerly  appeared  to  love  more  than 
the  apple  of  his  eye.  But  his  nature  is  very  changeable,  and  it  does  not  so  much 
come  from  his  tender  age  as  much  more,  as  I  think,  from  nature. 


I'llOV IDE X C E    A  N D    T II  E    A  U G  U S T A N A .    3G5 

Schnepf  is  a  very  good,  sensible  man.  I  wish  you,  to  honor  him,  would 
write  him  at  a  convenient  opportunity.  As  far  as  the  P>iesians  are  concerned,  the 
elector  has  instructed  Pomeranus  to  find  a  competent  man,  who  understands  the 
Saxon  language,  and  send  him  to  them.      Upon  this  opinion  you  can  answer. 

I  send  you  a  painting  of  the  fortress  of  the  city  of  Wien.  Through  Apel's 
messengers  we  will  write  more.  In  the  meantime,  send  our  letter  to  your  excel- 
lent wife  with  the  messenger,  for  he  can  bring  back  the  answer. 

Keep  well,  and  pray  to  Christ,  our  Lord,  for  us.  Given  on  the  Sunday, 
Vocetn  JuiH)iditalis. 


May  227i(L 

A  BISCUSSIOX  OF  MELAXClITIIoyS  LETTER  OF  THIS  DATE. 

This  was  the  third  Suudav  for  ihe  Electoral  ])arty  at  Augs- 
burg. Just  one  week  ago  Luther  had  written  returning  the 
Apology-Confession,  with  a  note  that  he  was  pleased.  It  had 
reached  Aug.sburg  perhaps  on  Friday.  Meantime  the  occa- 
sion for  haste  in  completing  the  document  had  disappeared, 
since  news  had  come  that  the  Emperor  would  probably  not 
arrive  before  Pentecost,  and  that  meanwhile  Mercurinus 
was  chami^ioning  the  Protestant  cause. 

Melanchthon  writes  this  news  to  Luther  to-dav,  closiuo- 
with  the  information  that  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  probably 
could  be  brought  to  sign  the  Confession  if  Luther  would  write 
bim.  To  draw  Philip  away  from  the  Reformed  and  bring 
him  to  adhere  to  the  Confession,  was  one  of  the  main  points 
in  Melanchthon's  policy  at  the  Diet. 

In  the  midst  of  this  news,  at  the  least  conspicuous  place, 
as  the  third  out  of  four  points  touched  on  by  the  letter,  Mel- 
anchthon reports  on  the  Confession,  which  e^'idently  has 
receded  from  its  all-absorbing  importance  of  ten  days  before, 
when  the  Emperor  was  expected  to  arrive  at  any  day. 

Melanchthon  tells  Luther  that  in  the  "Apology,"  that  is, 
in  the  Torgau  Articles,""  treating  of  Abuses,  "we  are  making 
changes  every  day.     I  have  taken  out  the  Article  on  Vows, 

^  The  Torgau  Articles  are  found  in  the  Beilagen  to  Briick's  Gcsch.  d. 
Religions-RandXungcn  in  loSO,  in  Archives  at  Weimar,  fol.  311-323b.  where 
Forstemann  discovered  them  and  printed  them  in  his  Urkunden  Buch,  I, 
68  sqq. 

27 


;JG6         THE    LUTHERAN    C 0 N F E S S ION i^'. 

because  it  was  too  meagre,  and  in  its  place  I  have  inserted  a 
more  detailed  explanation.  I  am  now  composing  the  Article 
on  'The  Power  of  the  Keys.'  "  So  mneh  Melanchthon  reports 
as  to  the  work  he  had  done  on  the  Torgan  Articles  since  he 
had  sent  them  to  Lnther  ten  days  ago.  He  then  speaks  of  the 
Schwabach  Articles'  fonndation,  as  follows:  "I  wish  yon  had 
examined  [or,  I  wish  yon  wonld  examine]  the  Articles  of 
Faith.  If  yon  find  that  there  is  nothing  wanting  in  them, 
we  will  take  the  remaining  ones  in  hand  as  best  we  nniy.  For 
it  is  ever  necessary  to  change  something  in  them  and  adapt 
one's  self  to  the  occasion." 

What  Melanchthon  meant  to  say  here  is  a  problem.  His 
words  are,  ''Vellem  percnrrisses  articnlos  fidei,  in  qnibns  si 
nihil  pntaveris  esse  vitii,  relinqna  utcnnqne  tractabimns." 
He  opens  with  an  nnfnlfilled  wish  ("vellem"),  and  yet  closes 
with  a  definite  fntnre  intention  ("tractabimns"),  apparently 
based  on  the  fnlfilment  of  the  wish.  The  meaning  wonld 
be  clear  if  Knaake's  hypothesis  that  Lnther  had  not  yet 
retnrned  the  docnment  sent  on  the  11th,  were  trne;  or  it 
wonld  be  clear  on  Kolde's  snggestion  that  ^I.  had  not  yet 
looked  at  the  docnment,  retnrned  by  Lnther  and  coming  per- 
haps just  while  ]\r.  was  writing.  Or,  if  Lnther  had  sent 
back  the  Apologia,  and  not  the  Articles  of  Faith  ;  or  if  M. 
icere  sending  Lvilir^-  llic  (.^oufession  a  second  time"  M.'s 
words  Avonld  be  clear.  They  wonld  also  bo  clear  if  ]\r.  were 
referring  to  tlie  original  S'-hwaliach  Articles,  of  which  Lnther 
wonld  liave  a  copy  in  his  ])ossession,  and  IMelanchthon  was 
here  saying  he  wonld  add  snch  points  of  doctrine  as  they 
lacked,  to  render  them  complete  for  Angsbnrg.. 

Whatever  interpretation  may  be  placed  npon  this  letter, 
and  whether  Lnther  ever  received  it  or  not,  does  not  materi- 
ally affect  the  relation  of  Lnther  to  the  Angsbnrg  Confession. 

What  Lnther  had  in  hand  on  the  15th  was  the  Apology- 
Confession    discovered    at    Nuremberg   by    Kolde,    and    the 

"'  Krauth,  Chioiiiclr  of  Auoslnn-rr  Confexfiio>i.  26-31.  Possibly  Melanchthon 
■was  elliptical.  [If  it  be  not  asking  too  much,]  I  wish  you  would  examine 
the  Articles  of  Faith  [whethpr  or  not  you  think  there  is  sompthing  defective 
in  them  ;  and]  if  you  shoiUd  think  there  is  nothing  wanting  in  them,  [then]  we 
will  elaborate  the  remaining  ones  in  like  manner  [as  we  have  already  treated 
the  Articles  on   Abusesj. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.     ;3G7 

changes  referred  to  by  Melanclithon,  as  having  l^een  made  up 
to  the  22nd  and  after  the  11th,  referred  chiefly  to  several 
articles  in  the  Abuses ;  whereas  tlie  far  greater  change,  which 
converted  the  Saxon  document  into  our  common  and  abid- 
ing testimony  of  historical  Christianity  to  the  content  of 
Christ's  Gospel,  was  not  brought  about  till  the  middle  of 
June.  The  one  striking  fact  in  this  letter  of  the  22nd  is  that 
Melanclithon,  as  in  liis  and  the  Elector's  letters  of  the  11th, 
still  defers  absolutely  to  Luther  as  to  the  substance  of  the 
doctrine  to  be  emlwdied  ;  and  that  it  was  open  and  understood 
between  him  and  Luther  tliat  he  was  to  elaborate  and  adapt 
the  mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  to  the  situation  under  which 
the  Confession  would  be  made. 

"We  see  no  just  reason  for  the  theory  tliat  this  letter  failed 
to  be  sent  to  Lutlier.  It  was  to  go  bv  a  special  express 
through  to  Wittenberg,  carrying  letters  to  Luther's  wife  and 
others,  to  Avhich  allusion  was  made  in  this,  and  perhaps  in  the 
other  letters.  We  know  tliat  Luther  received  the  painting  of 
Vienna  which  probably  accompanied  the  letter,  or  of  whose 
coming  this  letter  at  least  advises  Luther.  And  the  line  of 
connection  wdiich  "The  Conservative  Keformation"  has  es- 
tablished has  not  been  successfully  broken.  In  it  Krauth 
says : — 

"But  the  fact  is  that  Luther  did  receive  Melanchthon's  letter  of  the  22nd, 
The  letter  was  not  lost,  but  appears  in  all  the  editions  of  Melanchthon's  letters, 
entire,*^  and  in  the  earliest  histories  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  without  a  hint, 
from  the  beginning  up  to  Riickert's  time,  that  it  had  not  been  received.  When 
we  turn  to  Luther's  letters,  complaining  of  the  silence  of  his  friends,  we  find  no 
evidence  that  Melanchthon's  letter  had  not  been  received.  They  create,  on  the 
contrary,  the  strongest  presumption  that  it  had  been  received.  As  it  was  sent  at 
once  (Melanchthon  says  that  he  had  hired  a  letter-carrier  before  he  began  the 
letter),  it  would  reach  Luther  about  May  25th. 

"  Luther's  letter  of  June  1st  to  Jacob  Probst,  in  Bremen,'''  shows  that  he  had 
intelligence  of  the  most  recent  date  from  Augsburg,  that  he  was  sharing  in  the 
cares  and  responsibilities  of  what  was  then  passing  :  '  Here,  also,  I  am  occupied 
with  business  for  God,  and  the  burden  of  the  whole  empire  rests  upon  us.'  He 
then  uses,  in  part,  the  very  language  of  Melanchthon's  letter  of  May  22nd,  as  to 


"•■'  Original  Latin  in  C.  R.,  II,  No.  698  ;  German  in  Walch.  XVI,  No.  927. 
»••' De  Wette,   Bricfc,   No.   1217;   Buddeus,  Suppl.,    No.   123. 


■■](^S        THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  time  when  the  Emperor  would  be  at  Augsburg."*  He  quotes  from  that  letter 
Melanclithon's  very  words  in  regard  to  Mercurinus  : — -'^ 

'  He  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  violent  councils — that  it  appeared  at 
Worms  what  violent  councils  would  do.  He  desired  the  aflairs  of  the  Church  to 
be  peacefully  arranged.'  He  closes  his  account  of  things  at  Augsburg  by  saying  : 
'  You  have  an  account  of  matters  now  as  they  are  to-day  at  Augsburg  '  {hodie 
/labet). 

"  Luther  did  receive  Melanchthon's  letter  of  the  22nd,  and  on  June  1st  quotes 
largely  from  it."  "* 

"Luther's  letter  oi  June  20th,  to  Justus  Jonas,""  gives  direct  evidence  how 
long  the  interruption  of  correspondence  continued  :  '  Your  letters  have  come  at 
last,  my  Jonas,  after  we  were  well  fretted  for  three  whole  weeks  with  your 
silence.'  The  period,  therefore,  did  not  embrace  May  22nd,  but  only  the  first 
three  weeks  in  June.  There  is  no  reason  whatever,  therefore,  for  doubting  that 
Luther  received  Melanchthon's  letter,  and  the  Articles  of  faith  of  May  22nd."  ^* 


Mnij  2J,th. 

BRUCK    BUSY    OX    THE    CONFESSION. 

Meantime  tlier''  '^  another  hand  busy  on  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  as  important  to  the  final  issue  as  that  of  Melanch- 
thon  himself.  It  was  the  hand  of  Chancellor  Briick.  On 
May  24th,  the  Nuremberg  delegates  wrote  home:  "The 
Saxon  Counsel  has  returned  from  Dr.  Luther;  but  Dr.  Briick, 
the  chancellor,  has  to  recast  it  from  beginning  to  end."  " 


**Mi-}.:     Vix   ante   Pentecosten  ;   Luth. :    Forte  ad   Pentecosten. 

^^Mel.:  Nolle  se  violentis  consiliis  interesse ;  Luth.:  Se  nolle  interesse 
violentis  consiliis.  Mel.:  Wormatiae  apparulsse,  quam  nihil  proflciant  violenta 
consilia  ;  Luth. :  Wormatiae  vidisset,  quid  efficerent  violenta  consilia.  Mel. :  Vir 
summuK  Mercurinus ;  Luth. :  Summus  Mercurinus.  Mel. :  Res  ecclesiasticae 
rite  constituerentur ;  Luth. :  Ecclesiae  res  cum  pace  constitui. 

»•  Con.  Ref.j  p.  230. 

^De  Wette,  No.  1232;  Buddeus,  No.  127. 

»8  Con.  Rcf.,  p.   232. 

""  C.  R.,  II,  62. — "  Hinten  und  vorne  daran  zu  formen  habe."  Perhaps  this 
refers  to  the  Preface  and  the  Conclusion  :  it  may  include  the  phraseology  and 
the  line  of  argument  of  the  Articles.  For  we  know  that  Briick  had  a  close 
hold  on  the  substance  of  the  Reformation  doctrine,  and  was  on  the  watch  lest 
Melanchthon  should  yield  in  the  substance ;  and  was  determined  that  there 
should  be  a  square  presentation,  such  as  would  afford  a  solid  foothold  for 
argument,  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine,  and  for  the  preservation  of  civil  rights. 
Cp.  also  the  report  of  the  Nurembergers  later  in  the  Summer  :  "  The  Elector 
in  this  business  has  no  one  more  sensible  than  the  one  and  only  Dr.  Briick." 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.     3G9 

THE   OLD   ilARGRAVE   GEORGE   OF    BRANDE^^BURG   ARRIVES. 

On  this  day,  May  2-lrtli,  the  Protestant  forces  were  aug- 
mented by  the  arrival  of  the  Margrave,  who  was  an  important 
factor  in  the  change  to  come  over  the  Apology-Confession, 
since  he  came  expecting  to  fulfil  his  original  intention"*"  of 
associating  himself  before  the  Emperor  with  tlie  Elector  and 
the  city  of  Xuremberg. 


Maij  2J41i. 

THE    EMPEROR   SENDS   AN    EMBASSY    TO    AUGSBURG. 

While  the  Apology-Confession  was  ]iroceediiig  toward  com- 
pletion, and  the  Elector  was  seeking  the  advice  of  the  theolog- 
ians as  to  the  preaching,  Charles  made  one  more  attempt  to 
settle  things  from  Innsbriick.  On  May  2-ith,  two  of  his  im- 
portant officials,  friendly  to  the  Elector,  the  Connts  of  Xas- 
sau  and  of  Xeuenar,  appeared  before  the  Elector,  with  a  let- 
ter"" of  secret  instructions  in  their  pocket. 

They  stated  that  the  Emperor  was  very  sad  at  the  thought 
that  religious  controversies  should  have  broken  the  good  un- 
derstanding that  had  existed  so  long  between  the  houses  of 
Saxony  and  Austria ;  that  he  was  surprised  to  see  the  Elector 
rising  in  opposition  to  the  Worms  edict,  which  had  been 
passed  unanimously  by  all  the  imperial  estates ;  and  that  his 
newly-made  alliance  would  tend  to  disrupt  the  German 
nation  and  cause  bloodshed.  Last  of  all,  the  embassadors 
insisted  that  the  Elector  bring  the  preaching  to  an  immediate 
end,  else,  in  their  judgment,  there  would  be  serious  con- 
sequences. 


"■»  Fbrst.,   I,    119   sqq. 

'"'  A   copy   in   the   arohives   at   Weimar.      Printed   in   Worst.,  I,    220  ;    Colest., 


I,   50. 


370         THE    Ll'THERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Imperial  Instruction,  with  which  the  Counts  of  Nassau  and  Neuenar 
WERE  Sent  to  Augsburg  to  the  Elector  John,  to  Pray  that  Either 
He  or  His  Son,  the  Prince,  Should  Journey  to  the  Emperor,  or 
that  at  Eeast  the  Protestant  Preaching  Should  be  Intermitted 
Until  thl  Arrival  of  His  Majesty. 

A  copy  in  the  Archives  at  Weimar. 

Printed  iu  Fiirstemann,  Urk.,  I,  220;  Colestin,  I,  50. 

AAiy  24th. 

Carl,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  Roman  Emperor,  at  all  times  promoter  of  the 
Empire. 

First  of  all,  they  are  to  convey  to  him  our  kingly  grace  and  all  good,  and 
then  to  narrate  how  we  have  perceived  his  obedient  Christian  and  faithful  tender. 

He  is  to  be  reminded  that  he  shall  remember  the  close  relations  between 
the  houses  of  Austria  and  Saxony  ;  and  he  knows  how  the  troublesome  aftairs  of 
our  holy  Christian  faith  originated,  out  of  which  so  much  dissension  has  grown. 
He  also  knows  that  those  who  have  separated  themselves  in  this  matter  from  us 
and  the  other  five  electors  of  our  holy  Empire,  have  ignored  and  despised  the 
edict ;  and  that  we  and  all  six  electors  and  other  princes  and  estates  of  the  holy 
Empire  did  unanimously  resolve  on  what  is  for  the  best,  which,  together  with  the 
error  and  dissension  touched  on  above  (despite  the  liighest  disgrace  1  as  a  Roman 
emperor  have  thereby  suffered),  has  brought  the  holy  Empire  and  almost  all 
Christendom  to  such  a  condition  that  it  can  not  again  be  easily  restored. 

And,  furtiier,  that  he  has  made  and  still  maintains  a  special  understanding 
and  compact  with  those  who  have  been  disobedient  and  obstinate  toward  us  in 
this  matter,  against  us  and  our  edict ;  and  that  he  as  the  head  of  the  opposition 
is  still  supporting  it. 

So  far  as  the  shedding  of  blood  is  concerned  in  the  past,  as  also  in  tlie  future, 
he  knows  that  wc  will  spare  no  diligence  that  it  shall  nut  occur. 

THE    Sr.COM)    IMPERIAL    COMAfAX!)    TO    81LKXCE    THE    GOSPEL. 

The  Elector  luul  already  {Iccliiicd  to  put  a  stoji  to  Ins 
preachers'  sermons;  but  tliis  embassy  more  persistently  than 
ever  nrged  that  the  preaching  cease.  The  Elector  was  taken 
by  surprise,  and  exclaimed:  '*If  the  Emperor  forbids  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  I  shall  immediately  return  home."  '"' 

Though  the  full  significance  of  his  positi(»n  may  not  have 
been  clear  to  him  at  this  time,  the  whole  Confessional  question 
at  Augsburg  was  wraj^ped  U])  in  his  right  and  duty  as  to  this 
one  thing. 

He  was  standing  here  on  the  edict  of  1520,  as  over  against 

"^C.   R.,  II,   88. 


PROVIDEXCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     3?! 

that  of  1529.  In  1521  Luther,  at  Worms,  was  asked  to  re- 
cant, while  in  1530  the  Elector  at  Augsburg  was  asked  to 
refrain  from  giving  testimony  to  that  which  he  believed.  The 
guise  of  propriety  as  to  a  (lis])Uted  question  was  assumed  by 
the  Eoman  demand  made  through  the  Emperor,  but  without 
any  guarantee  that  the  right,  once  lost,  would  be  restored  by 
a  fair  investigation.  If  confession  in  the  pulpit  could  be 
shut  oif  ahead  of  trial,  then  confession  in  the  Diet  could 
similarly  be  su])pressed  without  trial.  The  importance  of  the 
principle  of  preaching  became  more  and  more  clear  as  the 
days  passed.  It  was  really  the  basal  question  of  the  hour. 
Put  in  general  terms  it  amounted  to  this :  Are  the  German 
nation  and  the  Lutheran  Faith  standing  to-day  on  the  Diet 
of  Spires  or  on  the  Diet  of  Worms  ? 

The  Elector's  firmness  was  admirable,  and  all  the  more 
so  because  his  theologians — even  Luther — had  yielded."" 

We  do  not  believe  that  this  point  has  been  given  considera- 
tion, as  a  key,  in  the  attempted  tmraveling  of  the  mystery  of 
the  silence  between  Augsburg  and  Luther  for  the  coming 
month,  and  of  the  inde])endent  diplomacy  of  ^[elauchthon 
during  part  of  the  same  period.  Is  it  not  possible  that  some 
of  ]\relanchthon's  agony  was  due  to  the  Elector's  loss  of  con- 
fidence in  him  as  a  counsellor?  And  is  it  not  possible  that 
the  disap}>ointing  advice  of  ^relanchthon  and  Luther,  in  the 
present  emergency,  had  caused  "the  old  man"  to  confide  more 
fully  in  the  common-sense  wisdom  and  faith  of  Briick  and  to 
seek  less  counsel  from  Luther — who  in  his  isolation  had  not 
discerned  the  import  of  the  Roman  imperial  pressure — ,  and 
from  Melanchthon — who  was  willing  to  yield  the  greater 
part  of  the  cause,  to  keep  the  peace  ? 

Melanchthon,  on  May  22nd,  does  not  write  to  Luther  as  an 
inner  counsellor  of  the  Elector;  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that, 


""Luther's  reasoning  expressed  in  his  letter  of  May  15th,  based  on  the  faot 
that  Augsburg  was  an  imperial  city,  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
fact  that  the  city,  the  Diet  and  the  Emperor  himself  were  on  German  soil. 
Any  weight  that  this  latter  fact  might  have  on  the  day  of  the  reading  of  the 
Confession,  applied  with  equal  force  to  the  preaching :  and  the  Elector,  and 
Briick,  realized  it.  Besides,  preaching  is  testimony  for  God's  Gospel,  and  Cfpsar 
is  not  lord  of  God's  Gospel. 


373         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

excepting  his  letter  of  June  1st,  we  know  of  no  other  letter  of 
the  Elector  to  Luther  during  the  rest  of  May  and  the  whole 
of  June.  The  Elector  was  disappointed  in  the  Yielding  of  his 
theologians:  lie  was  now  keeping  his  own  counsels,  Melanch- 
thon  was  frightened ;  and,  having  heen  approached  hv  the 
German  Catholic  party  before  the  Emperor  arrived,  and  by 
the  Imperial  party  on  June  15th  or  16th,  was  going  his  own 
dangerous  way. 

Melanchthon  had  appealed  to  Luther's  favorite  civil  doc- 
trine of  obedience  to  authority ;  and  Luther,  still  trusting  the 
Emperor,  and  not  knowing  that  the  civil  authority  was 
warped  on  this  point  by  Roman  ecelesiasticism,  nor  realizing 
that  the  question  of  conscience  in  confessing  the  Gospel  and 
of  liberty  in  worship  was  at  stake,  had  given  the  exact  reply 
that  Melanchthon  desired, — on  a  separate  sheet  of  paper, 
which  could  be  sliown  the  Elector. 

Wliile  it  is  true  that  a  month  later,  on  June  19th,  at  the 
last  moment,  the  act  of  preaching  was  temporarily  suspended, 
and  that  this  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants  made 
the  peaceful  reading  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  the  Diet 
possible;  yet  by  that  time,  the  action  of  the  Elect/or  had  res- 
cued the  question  from  compromise.  The  suspension  Avas 
now  a  judicial  one,  ]>ending  a  decision.  It  affected  both 
parties  equally,  infringed  on  no  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
permanently  yielded  no  rights  of  testimony.  But  his  theo- 
logians had  advised  an  unconditional  surrender  of  this  posi- 
tion at  the  start,  and  the  Elector  shook  his  head. 

"  Onr  old  man  is  intractable,"  wrote  Melanchthon  to 
Luther.  Briick  and  the  Elector,  the  two  laymen,  were  a 
unit  against  the  tlieologians.  They  were  determined  not  to 
compromise.  Said  Briick:  "Tlie  Emperor's  demand  is  but 
a  suitable  beginning  to  bring  about  tlie  d(»struction  of  the 
Gospel.'"'  If  we  give  in  now,  they  will  crush  us  hereafter. 
Let  us  humbly  beg  jiis  !^^ajesty  to  ])erniit  the  sermons  to 
continue." 


I'^iii  fiigsamer  Aiifang  iler  Xiederbringung  des  Evant^plii."— C.  /?.,  II.  76. 


PROVIDEXCE   AyV    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    3?3 

Mai/  J  1st. 

Seven  davs  after  the  embassadors  of  Charles  appeared 
the  Elector  sent  in  his  written  reply: — 

"  It  is  not  true,"  he  said,  "  that  the  edict  of  Worms  was  agreed  to  by  all  the 
electors.  I  low  could  my  brother  and  myself,  by  approving  it,  have  placed  our- 
selves in  opposition  to  the  everlasting  Word  of  God  ?  Moreover,  succeeding 
Diets  have  declared  this  edict  to  he  impossible  of  execution.  As  for  my  friendly 
understandings,  their  only  aim  is  to  protect  me  against  acts  of  violence.  Let  my 
accusers  lay  before  the  eyes  of  his  Majesty  the  alliances  they  have  made.  I  am 
ready  to  disclose  mine;  and  the  Emperor  shall  decide  between  us. 

"Last  of  all — in  respect  to  the  preaching — nothing  is  proclaimed  in  it  but 
the  glorious  truth  of  Ciod,  and  never  was  it  so  necessary  to  us.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  do  without  it!" 

This  was  the  brave  Elector's  bold  ultimatnm;  and  it  would 
work  its  share  in  bringing  the  Emperor  speedily  to  Augsburg. 

Six  days  later,  his  JMajesty  had  not  only  received  the 
Elector's  answer,  but  had  already  started  on  his  way  to 
Augsburg. 

3Iaij  29fJi. 


DISUNITED    LUTHERANS    NOT    PREPARED    FOR    THE    DIET. 

The  Lutheran  estates,  since  the  Elector  kept  himself 
aloof,  were  at  a  loss  and  felt  themselves  to  be  without  leader- 
ship. The  Landgrave  had  no  Confession,  for  he  had  been 
opposed  to  deciding  the  religious  question  at  a  Diet.  As 
early  as  May  22nd,  he  had  been  making  efforts  to  be  allowed 
to  participate  in  the  Confession  of  the  Elector,  for  Melanch- 
thon  then  wrote :  "  i^unc  Macedo  agit  ut  orationi  nostrum 
subscribat."  ^"■'  The  Margrave  had  no  Confession,  for  he  had 
intended  as  early  as  March  24th  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  the 
Elector.  K^uremberg  had  an  "  Opinion,"  but  the  delegates 
were  instructed  to  remain  in  close  touch  with  the  Saxons. 
Ansbach  and  Eeutlingen  doubtless  also  desired  to  unite  with 
the  Elector. 

""C,   B.,  II,   60. 


374      THE    LUTHERAN    C  0  N  F  E  S  ;<  I  0  X  S. 

But,  clesi)ite  his  danger  in  disobeying  the  instructions  of  the 
Emperor,  "the  old  man"  did  not  wish  to  be  bound  up  with 
or  be  interfered  with  by  the  others.  The  Emperor  was  ad- 
dressing him  alone,  was  making  him  responsible,  and  was 
charging  him  with  disloyal  alliances.  He  would  not  give 
the  Emjjeror  cause  for  such  charges,  but  would  continue 
loyally  on  the  line  he  had  originally  followed,  and  insisted  on, 
in  accepting  the  Call  to  the  Diet.  Luther  was  opposed  to  all 
alliances.  The  Elector  therefore  sent  I^uremberg  Avord 
through  Briick,  in  a  very  Luther-like  utterance,  that,  "His 
electoral  Grace  did  not  like  many  counsellors  in  such  an 
affair,  for  the  devil  was  fond  of  too  much  counsel !" 

Xevertheless  Xuremberg  requested  at  least  a  copy  of  his 
Apology-Confession,  and  received  it  very  promptly.  For 
the  interview  with  the  embassadors,  Xassau  and  Xeuenar, 
had  convinced  the  Elector  that  the  Emperor  was  hostile,  and 
that  the  Protestants  needed  each  other's  strength.  The  arrival 
of  the  Margrave  George  without  a  Confession  on  that  very 
day,  and  the  position  of  the  Margrave's  Chancellor  Vogler, 
with  the  agitation  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  led,  wc  believe,  to  an 
examination  of  the  Confessions  of  the  other  Estates,  and  to  a 
consideration  of  the  opinions  of  the  other  theologians  on  the 
Augsburg  Confession.'*^  Xuremberg  had  such  a  "Rath- 
schlag;"  ""  and  so  had  Reutlingeu."*  The  old  accounts  of  the 
reading  and  use  of  these  Confessions  by  Cyprian  and  by 
Salig,  and  especially  the  statement  made  by  Melanchthon 
himself,  in  his  account  of  the  origin  and  presentation  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  a  few  months  before  his  death,  in  1560, 
should,  we  believe,  be  taken  as  applicatory  in  summing  up 
the  general  situation  between  May  24th  and  June  25th,  with 
the  details  referring  at  times  to  the  earlier  and  at  times  to 
the  later  date. 


'"".SaJir/,  II,    168. 

"'  Cp.  W.  Moller.   Osiandcr,  Elberfeld.   1840,   p.    128   sqq. 

^'"'Gayler,    Hist.   Denkwiirdigkeitcn  der  Reichstadt   Reutlingen,   1840,   p.   350 
pqq. 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AU  G  U  S  T  A  N  A.  3'io 

COMPOSING    AND   KEVISIXG    THE    CONFESSION. 

The  story  of  Melanchthon,  which  has  been  analyzed  ex- 
hanstiA-ely  by  Dr.  Krauth,'^  begins  with  the  Emperor  Charles, 
as  follows : 

"On  his  return  to  Germany,  1530,  he  called  the  Princes 
to  Augsburg  [these,  the  Elector  and  Princes  and  cities]  that 
a  Confession  should  there  be  presented.  Of  this  a  narrative 
ought  to  be  given,  inasmuch  as  it  is  necessary  that  posterity 
should  know  that  our  Confession  was  neither  written  of  indi- 
vidual purpose,  nor  thrust  upon  the  Emperor  not  demanding 
it  [this  Confession  which  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  in 
the  Diet,  1530].  But  either  some  Confession  had  to  be  pre- 
sented, or  it  would  have  to  be  shown  by  dissembling,  that  the 
doctrine  which  had  already  been  received,  had  been  aban- 
doned, and  there  were  also  some  at  that  time  who  wished  to 
avoid  the  perils  of  Confession.  But  others,  the  Princes  and 
Officials  (Gubernatores),  tvhose  names  follow  the  Confession 
[the  Elector  and  Princes  and  cities],  believed  that  the  Con- 
fession should  be  offered  as  evidence  that  they  had  not  acted 
in  levity,  or  impelled  by  any  unlawful  desire,  but  that  for 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  their  own  souls,  and 
the  souls  of  many,  they  had  embraced  the  purer  doctrine.  I 
brought  together,  therefore,  in  singleness  of  purpose,  the 
principal  points  of  the  Confession,  which  is  extant,  embrac- 
ing pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Churches 
[this  Confession,  as  God  had  ordained  and  given  it,  was 
drawn  together  by  me].  I  assumed  nothing  to  myself,  for 
in  the  presence  of  the  Princes  and  Officials  [the  Elector,  and 
Princes  and  Legates,  who  subscribed  it]  and  of  the  preachers 
[with  their  Counselors  and  preachers  who  were  there],  it 
was  discussed  and  determined  upon  [diligently  pondered], 
in  regular  course,  sentence  by  sentence  [all  the  Articles]. 
The  complete  form  of  the  Confession  was  subsequently  sent 
to  Luther,  who  wrote  to  the  Princes  that  he  had  both  read 
this  Confession  and  approved  it.     That  these  things  are  so. 

*v.  A  Chronicle  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  1878,  pp.  54-61,  pp.  83-86. 
V.  also  First  Lutheran  Diet,  1877,  pp.  238,  242.     v.  also  Con.  Ref.  pp.  232,  233, 


376      THi:    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tlie  Princes,  and  other  honest  and  learned  men  yet  living, 
will  remember  [gracious  Princes  and  Counts,  and  other  hon- 
orable men,  who  by  God's  grace  are  yet  living,  can  testify]. 

Salig  says:  "We  now  come  to  the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
itself.  That  the  Seventeen  Articles  composed  by  Luther  form  its  basis  has 
already  been  alluded  to  several  times.  But  Melanchthon  now  was  obliged  to 
elaborate  them  further,  and,  as  he  possessed  a  beautiful,  perspicuous  style,  to 
form  the  Confession  out  of  them.  He  had  already  made  the  beginning  at  Coburg. 
And  at  Augsburg  there  was  more  time  to  work  upon  it.  But  he  did  nothing  by 
himself  in  so  important  an  affair,  concerning  as  it  did  the  Faith  of  the  whole 
Lutheran  Church.  To  give  over  to  a  single  man  so  important  a  work  showed 
that  there  was  the  greatest  confidence  in  his  suitability. 

"  Nevertheless  the  fact  that  this  work  was  to  pass  through  the  experienced 
hands  of  many  other  people  demanded  the  foresight  and  watchful  care  of  all  the 
Protestant  estates.  Melanchthon  handed  over  his  writing  from  article  to  article 
to  the  censorship  of  the  estates,  their  counsellors  and  theologians  (Der  Leipzi- 
schen  Theologen  Historic  der  Augsp,  contession  oder  des  Sacraments  Streits,  p. 
109)  ;  as  then  Z?.  Erhard  Schnepf,  who  himself  was  present  at  the  deliberations, 
writes  in  his  confession  issued  in  1655  (ib.  f  109)  ;  and  as  Melanchthon  testifies 
in  the  preface  of  the  first  volume  of  his  complete  works,  that  he  had  done  nothing 
at  all  by  himself,  but  had  received  the  opinions  [Gutachten]  of  other  theologians 
concerning  all  the  articles."  ^"^ 

"The  pious  Elector  John  was  particularly  concerned  for  the  Tenth  Article, 
which  treats  of  the  Holy  Communion,  that  the  same  might  be  composed  and  com- 
pleted in  the  most  accurate  and  faithful  manner,  since  among  all  the  disputed 
points  of  doctrine,  it  was  the  chief  article  that  marked  the  difference  of  the 
Lutheran  from  the  Swiss  and  Highland  doctrine.  When  now  the  confession  was 
completed,  the  Elector  sent  it  with  a  letter  of  his  own  to  Luther,  etc-''^^" 

In  weighing  the  testimony  of  Salig,  it  should  be  borne  in 
mind  that  lie  lacked  the  knowledge  gained  by  the  method  of 
critical  research  from  the  days  of  Weber  do\\Ti;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  he  cannot  be  accused  of  favoring  the  ultra- 
Lutheran  position,  since  he  w^as  a  pietist,  whose  natural 
judgment  would  be  regarded  as  favorable  to  Melanchthon. 
Kolde's  estimate  of  Salig  as  an  authority  is  just. 

Cyprian  also  rests  on  solid  sources  and  a  sound  judgment. 
He  says: 

"After  the  Emperor  had  assured  the  evangelical  estates  in  his  Call  thai  he 
would  gracionsly  hear  their  Opinion  of  Religion  at  Augsburg,  all  who  did  not 
wish  simply  to  lean  upon  the  Elector  had  their  theologians  draw  up  a  short  Outline 
of  the  Doctrine  which  was  then  in  use  in  the  churches  of  his  territories,  and 
brought  it  along  to  Augsburg.     This  was  a  very  easy  matter,  since  now  for  the 


'  Sali,/,  II,   1G8. 
lb. 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AU  G  U  ^  T  A  N  A.  377 

past  thirteen  years  everything  had  been  pretty  well  cleared  up  and  deliberated  on 
through  the  various  propositions,  books  and  doctrinal  documents  ;  and  since  the 
Seventeen  Articles  which  the  Elector  John  and  the  Margrave  George  of  Branden- 
burg had  laid  before  the  assembly  of  the  Protestants,  were  in  their  hands  (A/ii/Ur, 
c.  1.,  p.  302.)  Of  these  outlines  brought  to  Augsburg,  Camerarius  in  his  Lt/f 
of  Philipp,  p.  m.,  124,  says:  'There  were  very  many  descriptions  set  forth, 
some  of  them  verbose.  For  those  who  were  being  associated  in  this  cause  had 
each  ordered  their  own  theologians  to  compose  something  in  writing.  These  had 
to  be  read  and  known  by  Philipp.' 

"  In  Augsburg,  the  Saxon  and  other  theologians  conferred  as  to  their  views 
on  the  Outline  of  Doctrine,  and  at  last  completed  the  confession  of  faith :  with 
Melanchthon  putting  it  on  paper  {wobey  Alelanchthon  die  Feder  fnhrete).  The 
Seventeen  Articles,  shortly  before  delivered  at  Torgau,  as  is  evident,  and  as  the 
Elector  himself  testifies,  were  made  the  basis. 

"Not  only  the  theologians,  but  also  the  civil  counsellors,  considered  the 
Confession,  even  to  the  smallest  points,  as  the  word  'truly'  in  the  Tenth  Article 
can  give  evidence.  Of  this  Erhard  Schnepf,  the  theologian  of  the  Langrave  of 
Hesse,  who  was  of  use  in  these  transactions,  gives  the  following  information,  in 
the  beginning  of  his  Bekiinfnis  votn  Abeudniahl,  edited  in  the  year  1555  : 

"  '  Now  it  is  known  to  all  who  were  present  at  that  Augustana  deliberation  in 
the  year  1580  in  which  the  Confession  was  written,  that  before  it  was  offered  to 
the  Roman  Emperor  Charles  V.,  it  was  subjected  to  the  censure  of  the  theologians 
of  the  princes,  and  of  those  also  who  were  the  counsellors  to  our  princes,  and  of 
the  legates  of  the  two  cities,  on  account  of  which  it  was  at  that  time  determined 
to  use  only  the  adverb  duly,  although  ambiguous  as  then  discussed  by  many; 
since  no  one  then  of  all  those  who  were  committed  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  who  had  been  admitted  to  this  meeting  of  deliberation  was  of  the  same  view 
with  the  Zwinglians.  For  I  was  present  and  .  .  .  this  work  was  dangerous, 
very  important,  and  for  many  reasons,  especially  so  far  as  concerned  the  point  of 
the  power  of  the  bishops,  very  delicate  ;  for  it  went  straight  to  the  heart  of  those 
heads  of  benefices  and  the  bishops  who  were  almost  all  of  them  worldly  princes,  and 
were  present  in  great  splendor,  and  who  could  besides  place  a  large  army  in  the 
field  against  the  Evangelicals,  and  who  were  weaponed  by  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory and  the  mass,  of  oral  Confession,  by  the  superstition  of  the  people,  by  the 
indulgence,  by  the  interdict,  and  by  the  Pope." — Cyprian,  pp.  55-56. 

Cyprian  claims  co-operation  from  the  beginning: 

' '  In  one  sense  of  the  word  it  was  a  matter  of  good  fortune  that  the  Emperor 
had  delayed,  which  delay  was  falsely  ascribed  to  the  honors  shown  to  him  in  the 
\'enetian,  Tyrol  and  Bavarian  regions.  For  the  estates  could  consult  confidentially 
with  each  other,  and  the  theologians  who  discussed  the  articles  anew  and  worked 
them  over  with  all  jjrotherly  freedom,  became  more  and  more  certain  in  the 
points  of  teaching  out  of  God's  Word,  and  could  draw  up  their  sentences  carefully. 
Melanchthon  made  his  daily  changes  with  the  advice  of  the  others.  Camerarius  vita 
Philippi,  pp.  12.');  Post  diligentissimam  consideralionera  compssitum  est  scriptum 
etc. — Cyprian,  p.  57.      [  F;</.  also  Mel.'s  Pref.  to  C.  i?.] 

Yet  Ave  are  in  doubt  to-day  as  to  how  far  the  estates  partici- 
pated in  the  framing  of  the  Saxon  Confession  prior  to  the 
ITith  of  Jnne  and  the  crisis  at  Corpus  Christi.  Melanch- 
thon probably  had  gone  through  all  the  Confessional  docu- 


378         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ments.,  and  gained  hints  for  liis  daily  changes.  Cyprian, 
largely  quoting  ex  diario  gives  us  the  following  succinct  infor- 
mation : — 

"  Already  on  the  16th  of  May  the  Elector  announced  to  his 
Mittverwandten  at  Augsburg  that  the  Confession  was  then 
just  completed,  but  not  yet  finally  decided  on;  but  had  been 
sent  to  Dr.  Luther  for  examination. 

"  On  the  31st  of  May,  the  Confession  was  communicated, 
in  Latin,  but  without  Preface  and  Conclusion,  to  the  delegates 
of  the  cities.  For  Melanchthon  had  composed  it  in  the  name 
of  the  Elector  alone. 

"On  June  8th,  the  chancellor  of  the  Margi*ave  an- 
nounced to  the  representatives  of  the  cities : — 

"  'His  preacher  and  his  counsellors  had  gone  over  the 
Articles  of  Faith  which  the  Saxons  had  composed,  but  they 
found  just  that  lack  which  others  had  already  remarked :  that 
they  were  written  in  the  name  of  the  Elector  alone — they 
must  be  composed  in  the  names  of  all  the  princes  and  cities 
who  were  in  unity  on  the  Articles  of  Faith.' 

"  On  June  14th,  the  representatives  of  the  cities  received 
the  Saxon  Outline  of  the  Faith  in  German,  in  which  Philip 
had  already  made  a  change,  namely,  where  it  had  been  stated 
in  Latin  that  this  or  that  was  preached  and  held  in  the 
electorate  of  Saxony.  In  the  German,  he  had  omitted  the 
electorate  of  Saxony  and  used  a  conmion  word  that  might  be 
taken  to  denote  all  the  estates.     {Ex  diario.) 

"  According  to  this,  through  all  these  days,  the  work  was 
given  the  best  possible  consideration.  They  labored  in  com- 
mon counsel  upon  the  Confession,  and  it  was  composed  in 
the  names  of  all  the  Evangelical  estates." — Cyprian,  p.  179. 

However  this  may  be,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  during  this 
week  (June  23rd),  two  days  before  the  delivery,  all  the  estates 
were  called  in  and  all  doctrinal  matters  were  decided  on  con- 
jointly. Melanchthon,  with  the  discredit  of  his  private 
negotiations  upon  him,  stood  more  in  the  background. 
Frightened  by  Valdes,  he  softened  expressions  wherever  he 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.    379 

could,  and  imsuccessfully  attempted  to  retain  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Roman  bishops ;  but  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  see- 
ing the  Tenth  Article  retained  in  its  strength  and  the  Swiss 
thrown  out  (Kolde),  jSTeither  he  nor  any  of  the  theologians 
— except  Jonas — were  present  at  the  delivery  of  the  Con- 
fession, nor  were  they  allowed  to  sign  it.  The  matter  was 
in  the  firmer  hands  of  the  Princes  and  their  counsellors, 
who  were  unwilling  to  give  up  the  solid  public  rights  on 
wliich  they  stood  from  previous  Diets,  and  particularly  from 
the  imperial  Call ;  and  who  insisted  that  the  Confession  must 
be  delivered  to  the  Emperor  in  the  Latin  and  in  the  German 
language. 

After  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  which  Melanchthon 
regarded  as  a  temporary  widening  of  the  breach,  he,  instead 
of  standing  on  the  positions  taken,  insisted  on  going  back  to 
his  old  hope  of  compromise  and  in  bringing  forward  the 
question,  "How  much  was  to  be  yielded  to  the  Romanists.""*^ 
In  the  Committees  of  Compromise  that  were  appointed  after 
the  Confutation  came  in,  he  became  more  and  more  dicta- 
torial, and  all  feared  to  withstand  him.  The  Xurem- 
bergers  reported'"  that  "  The  other  Saxon  theologians  dare 
not  speak  openly  against  Philip,  for  he  has  gone  so  far 
recently  as  to  say  against  the  Liineburg  chancellor:  'He 
who  dares  assert  that  the  recent  concessions  made  [to  the 
Romanists]  are  not  Christian,  lies  like  a  villain.'  " 

They  reported  that  the  pious  Vogler  was  much  maligned, 
after  he  left  Augsburg,  for  having  been  unwilling  to  com- 
promise, and  continue :  "The  Elector  in  this  business  has 
no  one  more  sensible  than  the  one  and  only  Dr.  Briick ;  but 
they  have  brought  him  to  the  point  where  he  now  also  grows 
anxious  in  business,  since  there  is  not  a  soul  to  give  him  any 
support." 


llOa  To  be  fully  just  to  Melanchthon,  we  point  out  that,  for  this,  Luther's 
"  Admonition  "  and  other  declarations  at  the  start  might  be  looked  upon 
as   affording   some   precedent. 

"^Salig,    II,   332. 


380         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  we  have  greatly  anticipated  the  course  of  events,  and 
must  return  to  the  end  of  May  and  the  first  day  of  June. 

May  31  si. 

THE     OLDEST    REDACTION. 

The  IN^uremberg  delegates  received  the  Latin  Version  of 
the  Apology-Confession,  and  sent  it  home  on  June  3rd.  This 
was  the  document  which  has  been  termed  by  Ivolde,  "  The 
Oldest  Redaction  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  In  it,  we 
find  Melanchthon  still  manifesting  complete  confidence  in 
the  Emperor,  praising  him  in  the  article  on  the  Marriage 
of  the  Priests,  and  upholding  his  authority  in  spiritual 
things  and  his  power  to  decide  for  the  Church.  It  was  a 
royalist  and  a  Eomanistic  document  conceding,  for  the  sake 
of  apparent  unity,  those  Germanic  qualities  of  right  and 
liberty,  which  finally  gave  substantial  basis  to  Protestantism 
in  the  real  Augsburg  Confession.  The  weakness  of  "  step- 
ping softly  "  can  be  studied  to  advantage  in  this  proposed 
Confession  of  Melanchthon.  Its  study  as  a  step  in  the  de- 
velopment of  confessional  doctrine  is  also  most  instructive. 
We  see  how  the  development  originally  was  attempted  on 
the  basis  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  how  clear  and  apt  and  full 
souie  of  the  doctrinal  confessions  were  before  having  been 
filed  down  into  our  present  Confession,  and  how  Zwingli 
was  condemned  at  the  end  of  the  short  article  on  the  Mass. 

On  the  same  day  the  Confession  was  made  known  to  the 
other  states,  who  demanded  that  it  should  be  presented  in 
common  in  the  name  of  them  all."^  But  at  the  same  time 
Philip's  plan  of  appeal  tf)  a  council  gained  strength.  ''  We 
appeal  to  a  Council.  We  will  not  receive  the  Emperor  as 
our  judge;  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitutions  themselves  forbid 
him  to  pronounce  in  spiritual  matters.""     Closes   declares 


'"•    "  In  gemein  in  aller  Fursten  und  Stadte  Nahmen." — C.  R.,  II,   88. 

111b     "  Die    Constitutiunes    cayionicae    den    Kaysern    verbieten    zu    richten    und 
sprechen    in   geistlichen    Sachen." — lb.,    66. 


PROViDEXCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.     3S1 

that  it  is  not  the  civil  magistrate  who  decides,  but  the  sons 
of  Levi.  St.  Paul  also  says  ( 1  Cor.  14) ,  '  let  the  others 
judge,'  which  cannot  be  understood  except  of  an  entire 
Christian  assembly ;  and  the  Saviour  Himself  gives  us  this 
commandment:    'Tell  it  unto  the  Church.'" 


THE   SILENT    INFLUENCE    OF    LUTHER. 

Luther  did  not  realize  that  his  silent  influence,  as  the 
w^atchman  on  the  mountain,  as  Moses  stretching  out  his  ami 
over  the  field  of  battle  that  the  issue  might  be  on  the  side 
of  the  Lord,  was  of  more  weight  than  his  words,  and  per- 
haps than  his  personal  presence  in  the  mighty  contest. 
Had  he  come  to  the  Diet,  tlie  Augsburg  Confession  would 
not  have  been  delivered,  and  Protestantism  would  have  paid 
for  his  presence  with  his  life,  or  with  bloody  war.  Had  he 
remained  teaching  in  Wittenberg,  Melanchthon  would  before 
the  Summer  was  over  have  betrayed  the  whole  cause  into  the 
hands  of  the  Romanists.  Providence  had  placed  him,  the 
invisible  prophet,  on  the  ]Mount,  and  within  the  mighty  For- 
tress where  his  prayers  arose  uninterruptedly.  Yet  he  could 
feel  that  he  was  of  no  use! 


Luther  to  Link 

Wolfbiitt.  Cod.  Helmst.,  108,  f.  30b. 
Colest.,  I,  37 ;  Erl.  Br.  W.,  VII,  345. 

May  28th. 

I  also  know  very  well  that  I  am  entirely  usele.ss  on  this  trip,  and 
would  perhaps  have  accomplished  much  more  at  home  by  teaching,  but  I  could 
not  withstand  him  who  summoned  me. 

I  fear  very  much  that  Germany,  especially  the  Upper,  deserves  from  God  a 
severe  judgment  on  account  of  the  abominations,  murders,  deceptions  and  other 
outrages   against  God's  Word  which  daily  increase  ;  and  the  Turk   puts  on  his 
armor  not  in  vain.      God  have  mercy  upon  us.      .      .      . 
The  28th  of  May,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 
28 


383         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
June  1st. 


A  few  days  later,  in  the  beginning  of  June,  the  Elector 
sums  up  the  situation  briefly  and  admirably  in  a  letter  to 
Luther : — 

John  to   Luther. 
Chytriius  Hist.,  p.  11. 

June  ist. 

Our  greeting,  Reverend  and  Learned,  Dearly  Devoted.  We  received  your 
last  letter,  and  interpreted  the  Christian  consolation  you  addressed  to  us  to  our  great 
satisfaction.  It  shall  also,  if  God  will,  be  highly  consoling  in  these  very  impor- 
tant transactions. 

We  wish  to  inform  you  confidentially  that  his  imperial  Majesty  has  here 
served  upon  us  an  Instruction  in  which  we  are  sharply  taken  to  task  respecting 
his  Majesty's  edict '''■'  and  certain  other  things. 

Likewise  {although  mildly)  there  is  therein  also  demanded  of  us  that  we 
shall  discontinue  preaching  until  his  imperial  Majesty  will  arrive  and  restore  order 
in  these  matters,  liut  we  have  given  his  Majesty  an  answer  to  this,  from  which 
his  Majesty  must  graciously  realize  that  we,  as  we  have  determined,  cannot  yield 
in  this  matter.  What  may  happen  in  consequence  thereof,  we  will,  God  willing, 
endure. 

The  report  is  that  his  imperial  Majesty  left  Innsbruck,  is  moving  to  Munich, 
and  will  thence  come  here  after  Pentecost. 

Dated  Augsburg,  on  the  first  of  June,  Anno  1530. 

We  wonder  how  Luther,  who  had  yielded  to  Melanchthon 
and  to  his  regard  for  im]U'rial  authority,  felt  when  he  read 
this  letter  from  John  the  Steadfast,  wdio  could  not  spare  the 
preaching  of  the  "Word,  and  who  said  "  It  would  be  terrible 
to  give  up  God's  Word  and  truth."  Concerning  Luther's 
and  Melanehthon's  advice  on  the  preaching  the  Elector  is  re- 
ported to  have  remarked,  "  I  do  not  know  whether  I  or  my 
learned  ones  are  becoming  foolish." 

Without  the  Word  of  God  and  prayer,  Luther  would  have 
been  sad  and  lonely  enough  at  Coburg,  even  before  the 
period  from  ^May  26th  to  June  19th,  in  which  letters  failed 
to  arrive.  Qn  May  29th,  his  aged  father  died.  On  June 
1st,  he  sends  Probst  a  resume  based  on  Melanehthon's  letter 


"=The   Edict   of   Spires,    1529. 


PnOVJDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    383 

to  liim  of  May  22ncl,  of  the  situation  at  Augsburg  as  he  then 
understood  it. 

Luther  to  Jacob  Probst. 

Wolfb.,  Cod.  Helmst.,  108,  f.  112. 

Colest.  Hist.  Com.  Aug.,  I,  f.  54;  Eri.  Br.  \V.,  VII,  352. 

Jiuie  1st. 

To-day,  on  the  first  day  of  June,  the  Emperor  is  still  at  Inn.^briick,  and  will 
perhaps  get  to  Augsburg  towards  Pentecost. 

We  have  great  hopes  that  the  Emperor  will  act  graciously,  and  he  has  in  fact 
up  to  the  present"^  written  two  or  three  times  to  our  princes  in  a  kindly  way,  as 
others  of  his  court  also  have  done,  particularly  Henry,  duke  of  Nassau.  He  has 
also  revealed  this  token  of  his  gracious  feeling  that,  when  the  dukes  of  Bavaria, 
Duke  George  and  Margrave  Joachim,  had  pas.sed  Augsburg  by,  and  hastened  to 
Innsbruck  to  the  Emperor,  that  they  might  win  the  Emperor,  and,  by  gaining  his 
ear  in  advance,  enrage  him  against  our  princes,  the  Emperor  was  unwilling  to 
yield  to  them,  since  he  wished  to  remain  impartial  to  the  others.  And  the 
highest  Chancellor  Mercurinus  did  openly  say  that  he  would  not  participate  in 
compulsory  measures,  because  he  had  suthciently  experienced  at  Worms  what 
such  action  would  accomplish.  He  wished  that  the  ditticulties  of  the  Church 
would  be  peaceably  settled.  This  Naaman  (2  Kings  o)  Ciod  has  perhaps  raised 
up  for  us."''  Let  us  only  pray.  Our  praying  has  begun  to  be  heard,  and  we  will 
not  discontinue  it. 

There  is  great  scarcity  at  Augsburg,  so  that  our  Elector  pays  one  hundred 
florins  every  week  for  bread  alone,  and  expends  weekly  two  thousand  florins. 

This  Diet  will  not  continue  long.  Eck  has  distributed  Forty  Theses  against 
us,  which  are  full  of  the  devil,  and  he  offers  himself  to  dispute  with  everybody 
except  himself.  We  deride  the  fury  of  this  person  ;  there  will  now  be  no  chance 
to  dispute  after  the  enemy  has  killed  so  many  ;  neither  will  there  be,  for  this 
purpose,  any  time  at  Augsburg. 

I  tarry  upon  the  border  of  the  Saxon  territory,  halfway  between  Wittenberg 
and  Augsburg.      For  it  was  not  safe  to  take  me  along  to  Augsburg. 

Thus  you  have  very  nearly  the  whole  matter,  as  it  just  now  presents  itself  at 
Augsburg.  Philippus,  Jonas,  Spalatin  and  Agricola  went  with  the  Elector  to 
Augsburg. 

By  the  next  day  Luther  is  more  pessimistic,  and  less 
hopeful  of  the  Diet,  despite  the  temper  of  Gattinara  and 
the  Emperor.  Visitors,  unbidden,  had  been  trespassing  upon 
his  time.  He  did  not  wish  to  hold  public  court  at  Coburg, 
and  he  seems  to  have  felt  that  the  news  of  his  presence  there 


"s  He  had  not  yet  heard  of  the  Nassau  embas.sy  of  May  24th. 
"*  He  died  three  days  after  this  letter  was  penned  by  Luther. 


384         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

had  leaked  out  through  the  traveling  messengers.  He  re- 
quests his  friends  at  Augsburg  to  write  less  openlv,  but  lo! 
they  do  not  write  any  more  at  all ! 

Luther  to  Melanchthon 

Wolfb.,  fod.  Helmst.,  108,  f.,  22b. 
CiJlest.  I,  fol.  cob;  Erl.  Br.  W.,  VII,  361. 

June  2nd. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ!  Hans  Reynick,  of  Mansfeld,  and  George  Romer 
were  with  me  yesterday,  and  Argula  von  Staufen  to-day.  But  as  I  see  that  this 
place  will  be  visited  all  too  much,  I  have  resolved,  following  the  example  of  your 
Stromer,  to  travel  elsewhere,  either  apparently  or  really,  in  order  that  it  may  be 
rumored  that  I  am  not  keeping  myself  here  any  longer. 

I  beg  of  you,  and  the  others  with  you,  in  future  to  speak  and  write  so  that 
no  one  will  seek  me  here  any  longer.  This  I  am  announcing  to  you  in  a  Jonas- 
like hurry,  yor  /  wish  to  remain  concealed,  and  to  have  you,  at  the  same  time, 
to  keep  me  concealed,  both  in  your  words  and  letters. 

Here  they  begin  to  make  us  believe  that  your  Diet  will  achieve  nothing;  and 
that  the  Emperor  will,  through  the  deceit  and  skilful  manipulation  of  the  bishops, 
be  detained,  until  you  shall  have  spent  all,  and  will  be  obliged  to  return  home. 
For  it  is  not  thought  that  the  archbishop  of  Treves  and  the  elector  of  the  Palatinate 
will  be  present;  and  that  the  Emperor,  induced  through  the  skill  of  the  papists, 
will  seek  reasons  to  be  prevented  from  coming  to  Augsburg.  These  matters  and 
utterances  cause  me  to  have  curious  thoughts.  But  the  messenger  is  in  haste.  Be 
well  in  Christ.      June  2nd,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

June  2nd. 


MELANCIITIIOX    FLATTERED    BY    THE    ROMANISTS. 

At  Augsburg,  meanwhile,  Melanchthon  was  tampered 
with  by  the  chaplain  of  Duke  George,  Cochlaeus,  who  sent 
Philip  a  private  note  {Colestin,  I,  55),  expressing  a  desire 
to  speak  with  him  alone  in  the  presence  of  Arnoldo  Wesa- 
liensi."°  ]\[elanchthon,  who  felt  himself  cut  off  and  solitary 
at  Augsburg,""  was  softened  by  this  approach,  and  felt  that 
the  negotiations  should  be  conducted  as  mildly  as  possible. 
He  asked  the  Elector  to  refrain  from  the  use  of  meat  on  fast 


"»Sa/i(7,  II,  175. 

"»  Nos  non  minus  sumus  monachi  quam  vos  in  ilia  arce  vestra. — C.  R.,  II,  46. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTANA.    385 

days  in  his  court,  because  the  Romanists  were  speaking  about 
it.    But  the  Elector  did  not  yield. 

Just  before  the  Emperor  left  Innsbriick,  Melanchthon 
entered  into  a  secret  correspondence  with  the  other  side  as  rep- 
resented by  Albrecht,  archbishop  and  cardinal  of  M aintz,  who 
proved  somewhat  more  friendly  than  the  other  cardinals. 
All  that  is  known  as  yet  of  this  strange  transaction  is  to 
be  found  in  a  sentence  in  a  letter  of  John  Eurer,  the 
court  preacher  of  Ansbach,  who  was  at  Augsburg  on  the 
Evangelical  side  with  Andreas  Altheimer.  The  letter"'  is 
dated  June  4th.  The  following  is  the  sentence:  Scripsit 
Philippus  litteras  ad  Archiepiscopum  Moguntinum,  quibus 
petit,  quo  operam  det  ne  res  ad  arma  deducatur,  quid  is 
responderit,  alicjuando  cognosces,  nondum  Philippus  respon- 
siouem  sed  solas  suas  literas  nobis  communicavit. 

Jime  Jitli-6th. 

THE  HAND  OF  ROME  SHOWN   IN  PEEPAEATIONS  FOR  THE  DIET. 

We  already  have  seen  that  the  Emperor's  policy  was  de- 
lay, and  an  atttempt  to  persuade  the  Elector  to  settle  things 
privately  at  Innsbruck.  But  the  Elector's  declaration  of 
independence,  and  his  refusal  to  treat  except  at  Augsburg, 
together  with  a  letter  sent  the  Emperor  by  the  estates  im- 
patiently awaiting  him  at  Augsburg,  brought  his  Majesty  on 
at  once  toward  the  gates  of  the  city.  In  the  letter  just  al- 
luded to,  the  estates  said : — 

"Since,  in  accordance  with  your  Majesty's  Call,  we  have  most  obediently 
come  here  with  other  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  realm,  and  some  of  us  have  now 
been  lying  here  a  long  while,  under  great  difficulty  and  expense,  we  most  obediently 
beseech  your  imperial  Majesty  to  make  haste  to  get  here  as  soon  as  possible,  con- 
sidering that  the  importance  of  the  case  and  necessity  itself  highly  demand  it,  so 
that  there  be  no  failure  in  meeting  you  at  your  entry,  and  your  Majesty  be  not 
delayed  for  a  long  time  in  the  country,  but  everything  proceed  in  good  order  as 
befits  the  occasion." 


The  letter  is  printed  in  the  Appendix  of  Kolde,  Alt.  Red.,  p.  107. 


3SG         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

His  Majesty  responded  to  this,  and  was  coming  noAV — 
but  under  llonian  control ;  for  Gattinara  on  June  4tli  had 
succumbed  to  death,  leaving  not  one  person  in  the  imperial 
train  to  advocate  the  Evangelical  cause.  The  delegation 
which  was  sent  forward  to  arrange  for  the  imperial  arrival  de- 
clared that,  as  an  Emperor  crowned  at  Rome,"'"  Charles  would 
settle  religious  controversies  at  the  Diet ;  and  would  neces- 
sarily admit  the  papal  legate  in  his  full  character  and  com- 
mission, with  precedence  over  all  other  embassadors.  Hence 
the  civil  Electors  should  precede  the  Emperor  in  the  entry, 
the  cardinals,  archbishops  and  bishops  should  ride  along- 
side of  him,  and  the  papal  legate  should  enter  with  the 
Emperor    and    King    Ferdinand    and    beneath    the    same 

118 

canopy. 

The  Electors  remonstrated  against  this  order,  as  an  in- 
fringement on  the  privileges  granted  to  them  in  the  Golden 
Bull.  Still  this  matter  could  be  settled;  but  as  the  Emperor 
was  coming  to  celebrate  the  festival  of  Corpus  Christi  with  all 
the  estates  according  to  the  usual  jiapistic  ceremonies,  the 
far  more  important  question  arose,  whether  the  Protestants, 
if  the  Emperor  should  command  them  to  do  so,  could  partici- 
pate in  the  procession  with  a  good  conscience.  The  Saxon 
theologians  on  request  })reparcd  tlie  following  Opinion : — "' 

"  It  would  be  the  safest  to  withdraw  entirely  from  the  procession,  and  upon 
the  way  consider  how  best  to  excuse  themselves  to  the  Emperor,  with  the  acknowl- 


iKa      The  Pope  and  the  Emperor  at  Bologna. 

"  Herod  and  Pilate  soon  became  friends,  when  Christ  and  His  Word  were 
to  be  attacked.  The  Emperor  desired  to  be  crowned  and  had  thenceforth  to 
live  to  please*  the  Pope.  Bologna  was  chosen  as  the  spot  where  this  solemnity 
was  to  take  place.  .  .  .  Tlie  Pope  arrived  first,  but  the  Emperor  made  his 
entry  on  Nov.  5th,  1529,  and  remained  there  four  whole  monttis,  and  lived 
in  one  palace  with  the  Pope.  The  Emperor  took  up  the  subject  of  religion 
with  the   Pope,   and  desired   a  free   General   Council.'" — Sali(/,   11,   154. 

"  At  Bologna  the  Emperor  attended  a  congregation  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Cardinals,  and  also  used  this  opportunity  to  consider  his  mild  methods, 
selected  from  many  others,  of  bringing  about  religious  peace." — 7b. 

The  Pope  persisted  until  the  Emperor  was  obliged  to  promise  that  he  would 
first  bring  the  Lutherans  to  obedience  to  the  Papal  chair  in  a  gracious  way  ; 
and  if  this  proved  fruitless,  he  would  compel  them  to  it  by  force  of  arms. 
To  this  end  the  Emperor,  on  the  21st  of  January,  wrote  a  Call  to  a  Diet  to 
be   held   at  Augsburg  on   the   Sth   of  April."- — lb.,   156. 

'"  Colestin,  I,   58b  sqq.  ;  MiiUer,  III,  521  sqq. 

'^^'' Colestin,    I,    c.    67. 


rnOVIDEXCE    and    the    august  an  a.     387 

edgment  that  however  they  did  not  despise  the  most  honored  sacrament ;  for,  first, 
sucn  processional  misuses  are  against  the  Scripture  and  the  command  of  God  ;  and, 
second,  the  sacrament  was  not  ordained  for  the  purpose  of  praying  to  it.  If  they 
should  accompany  these  processions,  the  abuses  against  which  they  were  teaching 
would  be  countenanced  by  them. 

June  Jftli. 

GATTINARA    DIES  ;    THE    EMPEROR    LEAA'ES    INXSBRUCK. 

Mercurinus  Gattiiiara,  the  imperial  chancellor  and  the 
stannch  friend  of  the  Evangelical  cause,  who  had  kept  Cam- 
peggius  and  the  Tiomanists  in  check  np  to  this  time,  and  who, 
though  ill,  had  accompanied  the  Court  of  Charles  to  Inns- 
briick,  died  to-day.  Luther  had  just  compared  him  to  a 
Kaaman  "  raised  up  for  us  in  the  Court  of  the  King  of 
Syria."  At  every  step  the  chancellor""  had  resisted  the 
Pope.  The  Emperor  would  bring  to  him  the  papal  proposi- 
tions, and  the  chancellor  would  say,  "Remember  that  you  are 
master !"  But  with  his  death,  on  the  -ith  of  June,  the  last 
advocate  of  the  Elector  vanished  from  the  papal  court,  and 
henceforth  the  Romanists  alone  had  the  ear  of  the  Emperor. 

Two  days  after  his  death  the  Emperor  was  already  on 
his  way  to  Augsburg;  and  when,  on  the  Emperor's  arrival, 
the  Elector  learned  that  Mercurinus  was  dead,  his  eyes 
were  opened  to  the  necessity  of  giving  up  all  hopes  of  a  fair 
hearing  for  his  personal  Confession,  and  of  uniting  with  the 
other  Lutheran  estates  to  form  a  Protestant  party. 

June  Gill,  Monday. 

To-day  the  Emperor  and  his  court  broke  up  at  Innsbriick, 
and  on  the  following  Friday'"  arrived  at  Munich.  Here  it 
was  planned  by  the  enemies  of  the  Protestants  that  the 
Emperor  should  reach  Augsburg  on  the  very  eve  of  Corpus 
Christi  day.'" 


^^°  Cyprian  briefly   describes   this   influence,    and   the   consequent   mildness   of 
Charles,  on  pp.   7   and  8   of  the   Introduction  to  his  Uistoria. 

"1  Saliff,  II,  177. 

^Ub.,   181. 


38S         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
June  7th. 


LUTHER    STIRS    AUGSBURG    WITH    HIS    PERSON"AL    CONFESSIOTf. 

The  Emperor  would  he  lierc  in  a  week,  but  Augsburg  was 
to  experience  a  great  sensation  previous  to  his  arrivah 
Liuhcr's  personal  Confession — his  "  Admonition  to  the 
Catholic  clergy  of  the  Diet  " — reached  Augsburg  in  print 
on  the  Tth  of  June.  It  surely  added  oil  to  the  flame.  It  was 
immediately  sent  to  the  imperial  Court  and  Charles  in  a 
command  to  the  magistrate  prohibited  it  from  being  offered 
for  sale  in  Augsburg.'"'  Lnther  had  told  ]\Ielanchthon  as 
early  as  the  12th  of  'M&.j  that  the  copy  had  been  sent  to 
Wittenberg  to  be  printed. 

It  was  Luther's  wish  to  appear  at  the  Diet  in  this  writing, 
since  he  could  not  be  there  in  person.  His  personal  presence, 
he  felt,  would  l)e  of  no  value.  He  still  sees  a  day  of  salvation 
in  the  Diet,  which  Cod  offers.  He  will  pray,  beg  and  advise 
the  clergy  there  assembled  that  they  do  not  use  the  day 
thus  given  in  vain. 

Though  everlastingly  set  against  those  who  ridicule  Evan- 
gelical preachers  for  their  family  life,  while  they  themselves 
lived  in  sins,  he  says :  "  Give  us  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
free,  to  comfort  pious  consciences,  and  we  will  not  disturb 
you  in  your  property  and  your  jurisdiction." 

It  will  be  well  to  present  an  abstract  of  parts  of  this 
vigorous  document,  which  reached  Augsburg  just  ahead  of 
the  Emperor: — 


Admonition  to  the  Clergy  Assembled  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg. 
"  Et  nunc,  reges,  intelligite,  eruiliinini,  judices  terne." — Ps  'J  :  Hi. 

Grace  and  peace  in  God,  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  !  Since  it  is 
not  fitting  that  I  appear  at  this  Diet,  and  if  I  did,  I  could  not  he  of  service  there, 
as  I  am  not  adapted  to  pomp  and  formalities,  I  have  undertaken  to  be  among  you 
with  my  spiritual  presence  (which  I  shall  prove  by  diligent  petitions  to  my  God) 
and  through  this  my  feeble  message. 


'•*  Jacob  Sturm  at  once  sent  it  to  the  Reformed  at  Strasburg. 


rUOriDEXCE    AXD    the    august  an  a.    389 

My  conscience  compels  me  to  admonish  you,  in  a  friendly  way,  not  to  misuse 
this  Diet.  God  has  given  you  great  opportunity,  through  our  most  gracious  Lord 
Charles,  to  accomplish  much  good.  Now  is  the  accepted  time  and  the  day  of 
salvation  for  you.  The  hearts  of  all  the  people  are  waiting  with  great  expectancy 
that  this  Diet  prove  good. 

But  should  it  dissolve  without  deeds,  since  all  the  world  has  for  a  long  time 
been  pinning  its  hope  to  diets  and  councils,  despair  would  result.  P^or  things  can 
not  exist  any  longer  as  they  are.      This  you  know  and  feci  better  than  I  can  tell  you. 

Some  will  say  I  have  intruded.  Yet  the  foolish  man  oft  gives  better 
advice  than  many  wise.  It  is  the  wise  men  who  have  done  the  greatest  harm 
upon  earth,  especially  when  they  have  depended  upon  their  wisdom,  and  have  not 
dealt  in  the  fear  of  (iod. 

Of  this  all  history,  in  and  out  of  the  Scriptures,  is  full  ;  and  if  there  were  no 
other  example,  look  at  your  own  case.  For  almost  ten  years  you  have  tried  your 
wisdom  in  so  many  diets,  so  many  propositions,  so  much  diplomacy,  with  force 
and  anger,  with  murder  and  punishment,  that  I  have  wondered  at  you  ;  and  yet 
nothing  has  come  of  it. 

This  is  the  result  of  wisdom  without  humble  prayer.  You  are  not  willing  to 
fear  God  and  to  humble  yourselves.  If  you  still  attempt  to  threaten  and  do  not 
beg  God  for  help,  you  shall  not  now  accomplish  anything,  though  you  be  as  wise 
as  Solomon.  But  I  am  praying  diligently  for  God's  grace.  My  prayers  are 
heard,  which,  I  fear,  is  not  the  case  with  you. 

God  grant  that  you  do  not  oppose  Him,  and  that  my  prayers  may  not  be  lost 
on  you,  for  I  see  that  the  devil  wishes  to  be  on  the  ground,  together  with  the 
Turk,  and  is  stirring  up  one  faction  against  another,  and  would  rejoice  to  ruin 
everything. 

Do  not  try  to  save  me.  For  though  I  should  be  set  in  the  midst  of  Turks 
and  Tartars,  the  Pope  or  the  devil,  my  cause  is  sure ;  so  that  I  know  where  I 
shall  finally  abide,  according  to  Romans  8  :  28,  ".\11  things  work  together  for 
good  to  them  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose."  This  has  been  confirmed 
by  the  blood  and  martyrdom  of  many  pious  people. 

But  for  you  and  the  poor,  ignorant  people  I  have  concern,  and  would  gladly 
aid  with  prayer  and  admonition,  for  I  fear  you  have  forgotten  humility  toward 
God,  and  that  you  key  your  strings  too  hard,  whereby  some  disturbance  may  arise, 
so  that  both  we  and  you  will  fall  into  deep  need,  as  has  before  occurred.  For 
you  know  how  all  the  world  was  looking  and  waiting  with  hope  for  the  Diet  at 
Spires.  Your  proposals  there  were  so  wise !  Then  immediately  came  the  rod, 
namely,  Miinzer,  and  from  his  harmful  tumults  we  have  not  yet  recovered.  This 
is  what  it  means  to  attain  everything  by  force  and  self-will. 

Therefore,  at  Worms,  our  dear  Emperor  Carl  was  obliged  to  do  what  you 
wished,  and  to  condemn  me  with  my  whole  teaching,  which  you  have,  neverthe- 
less, yourselves  accepted  and  used  secretly  in  many  parts.  And  your  preachers 
would  have  nothing  to  preach  now  if  it  were  not  for  Luther's  books;  for  they 
let  their  sermon-book  lie  under  the  bench,  and  begin  to  preach  against  us 
about  faith  and  good  works.  Meanwhile  you  forced  an  edict  to  put  Lutherans  to 
death,  which  was  so  terrible  that  you  yourselves  could  not  endure  it,  and  it  had 
to  be  altered  at  the  Diet  at  Niirnberg. 

I  am  not  telling  this  to  ridicule   you,   but   to   admonish   you   to    learn  from 


390         THE   LU  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

experience  to  discontinue  the  use  of  threatening,  and  act  toward  God  in  fear  and 
humility.  Truly  the  problems  are  too  great  for  human  wisdom  and  power.  God 
must  help,  or  else  the  evil  will  grow  worse.  The  spirit  of  Miinzer  will  live,  and 
I  fear  more  powerfully  than  before. 

You  know  how  faithfully  I  held  the  ground  against  all  fanatics,  and  have 
protected  you.  Some  will  say,  "  This  is  all  the  fruit  of  your  teaching,"  but  there 
are  many  pious  persons  among  you  who  know  it  is  not  true.  Have  you  forgotten 
what  the  German  nobility  at  Worms  said  to  his  imperial  Majesty,  and  have  you 
forgotten  how  at  first  my  doctrine  was  preached  by  nearly  all  of  you .''  At  the 
time,  Luther  was  a  fine  teacher,  aptly  attacking  the  indulgence.  Afterwards  I 
attacked  the  cloister-life,  and  the  monks  became  fewer;  but  I  never,  not  to  this 
day,  heard  of  a  bishop  or  priest  who  wept  on  that  account.  There  is  now  scarcely 
a  soul  at  Augsburg  who  would  elevate  the  monks  to  their  former  position.  The 
bishops  will  no  longer  endure  such  bedbugs  and  lice  in  their  furs,  but  are  glad 
that  I  have  freed  them. 

If  our  Gospel  had  done  nothing  but  relieve  the  conscience  from  idolatry  of 
the  indulgence,  it  should  be  recognized  as  the  Word  and  power  of  God.  Who  is 
there  among  you  who  has  repented  of  his  great  sin  ?  Now  you  wish  to  come  to 
Augsburg  and  tell  us  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  with  you,  that  you  think  you  never 
did  any  harm  to  Christianity,  that  you  accomplished  great  things,  whereas  you 
have  desolated  the  Church. 

[Here  Luther  goes  on  to  describe  the  Confessional,  the  Beicht,  Penance,  the 
Kaufmesse,  Excommunication,  both  forms  of  the  Sacrament,  and  Celibacy.  ] 

The  points  which  are  necessary  to  be  taken  up  in  the  true  and  right  Christian 
Church,  if  we  are  to  continue  therein,  are  these:  What  a  Lie  is,  what  the  Gospel 
is,  what  Sin  is,  what  Grace  is,  what  a  Gift  of  the  Spirit  is,  what  right  Repentance 
is,  how  one  Confesses  aright,  what  F"aith  is,  what  the  Forgiveness  of  sins  is,  what 
Christian  Liberty  is,  what  Free  Will  is,  what  Love  is,  what  the  Cross  is,  what 
Hope  is,  what  Baptism  is,  what  the  Masses  are,  what  the  Church  is,  what  the 
Bishop  is,  what  the  Office  of  Preaching  is  ;  what  the  right  Catechism,  namely,  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  Lord's  Prayer  and  Faith;  the  right  Prayer,  the  Litany; 
Reading  and  Exposition  of  the  Scriptures;  what  Good  Works  are;  Instruction  for 
the  Married;  for  Children;  for  Man  and  Maid  Servants;  to  Honor  Authority;  to 
Visit  the  Sick;  to  Care  for  the  Poor  and  for  Hospitals;  to  Instruct  the  Dying. 
These  points  have  never  been  thoroughly  handled  and  taught  by  any  of  you. 

But  that  we  old  fools  should  go  about  in  bishops'  hoods  and  priestly  raiment, 
as  though  externals  were  articles  of  faith,  that  is  the  devil  himself.  You  know 
full  well  that  Pope  Adrian  through  his  legates  at  Niirnberg  admitted  that  the 
Roman  Church  was  the  cause  of  much  woe,  and  offered  to  make  it  better.  Why 
are  you  ashamed  to  acknowledge  this.-'     Why  do  you  stand  fast  in  your  pride? 

You  cannot  spare  the  prayers  of  the  Lutherans,  the  pious  heretics,  if  you  are 
to  effect  anything  of  value.  But  if  you  carry  matters  through  by  force,  your  blood 
be  upon  your  own  head.  We  are  and  desire  to  remain  in  unison.  We  have  faith- 
fully admonished  you  to  repentance,  and  have  said  we  desire  nothing  but  the  pure 
Gospel.  But  the  God  of  peace  and  consolation  give  you  His  Spirit,  Who  will 
show  and  lead  you  to  all  knowledge,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  Whom  be 
praise  and  thanks  for  His  unspeakable  grace  throughout  eternity.      Amen. 


rnoviDENCE  Axn  the  augustana.   ;^9i 

^Yednesdal/,  June  Stlt,  to  Wednesday,  June  loth. 

While  the  public  were  filled  with  the  sensation  created  by 
Luther's  Admonition,  and  the  news  of  the  Emperor's  ap- 
proach, the  Protestant  princes  Avere  busy  considering  what 
position  they  should  take  at  the  Diet  so  close  at  hand. 

Melanchthon  was  in  favor  of  leaving  all  to  the  Emperor's 
good  will — even  though  no  Confession  should  be  forthcoming. 

Philip  of  Hesse  was  opposed  to  dealing  with  the  question 
of  religion  in  a  political  Diet,  and  wished  to  unite  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  in  a  common  appeal  to  a  Coun- 
cil. The  Elector  was  averse  to  uniting  with  anyone  (he  was 
the  chief  offender  in  the  Emperor's  eye),  and,  until  recently 
at  least,  had  hoped  to  be  able  to  present  his  Saxon  Apology- 
Confession  in  defense  of  himself  and  Lutheran  doctrine.  The 
other  estates  were  perplexed.  On  June  8th,  the  ]\rargrave 
of  Brandenburg's  Chancellor,  Vogler,  had  a  talk  with  Kress, 
one  of  the  Nuremberg  delegates,  in  which  he  pointed  out  the 
defect  of  the  Saxon  Apology-Confession,  viz.,  that  it  was 
made  only  in  the  name  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  while  the 
Margrave  thought  it  ought  be  offered  in  the  name  of  ''  all  the 
princes  and  cities  that  are  in  unity  on  the  Articles  of  Faith," 
so  as  to  be  the  common  Confession  of  the  Evangelical  estates 
of  Germany.  He  said  that,  "  the  Litroduction  might 
separately  specify,  where  it  could  not  be  done  in  common, 
what  every  prince  or  estate  had  done  for  his  imperial 
Majesty."  For  the  Call  had  specified  that  each  estate 
should  prepare  its  own  Statement,  and,  according  to  Cyprian, 
every  one  of  them  who  did  not  simply  lean  upon  the  Elector 
had  ready  a  short  outline  of  the  doctrine  which  was  taught 
in  his  lands.'"*  Camerarius  says,  "Those  who  were  joined 
together  in  this  cause  had  ordered  their  own  theologians  also 
to  compose  something,  which  was  read  by  Philip."  ^^  "  This 
was  not  a  difficult  task,"  says  Miiller.''* 


'^  Hist.,  p.  55. 
''■^VUa,  124. 
^•-«  c.    L,   p.    302. 


392         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  to  return  to  the  situation  before  us.  During  the  period 
between  Wednesday,  June  8th,  and  the  following  Monday, 
the  13th,  Nuremberg  and  Brandenburg  appear  to  have  been 
agitating  for  this  change  in  the  Preface  of  the  Apology-Con- 
fession, in  which  all  the  estates  should  be  recognized. 

Between  Saturday,  the  11th,  and  Monday,  the  13th,  Philip 
of  Ilesse  seems  to  have  become  very  active  again,  especially 
with  the  Margrave,  in  opposing  the  intention  of  submitting 
the  religious  question  to  the  Diet.  He  once  more  was  agitat- 
ing for  a  confederation  with  the  Zwinglians,  and  the  post- 
ponement of  the  religious  question  to  a  Council.  Meantime 
Melanchthon  probably  was  changing  the  Confession  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  enlarged  horizon  gained  in  the  Protestant 
negotiations,  although  it  still  stood  as  a  Saxon  document. 

On  Monday,  the  13th,  Melanchtlion  had  a  conversation 
with  the  Roman  Henry  of  Brunswick.'"  The  Landgrave 
Philip  was  pressing  for  confederation,  but  Henry  told  ^[e\- 
anchthon  that  the  Landgrave  was  a  plotter;  and  ^felanchthon 
expressed  Jiiiiisclf  as  opposed  to  Protestant  confederation, 
and  as  willing  to  harmonize  with  the  Romanists  if,  as  the 
Duke  said,  the  twofold  form  of  the  sacrament,  the  marriage 
of  priests,  monastic  liberty,  abolishment  of  paid  masses  and 
freedom  of  foods  were  not  condemned. 

On  this  very  day,  June  13th,  Melanchthon  ^vrote  to 
Luther^  his  opinion,  gained  from  the  Elector's  correspond- 
ence, that  Charles  would  make  peace  Avith  the  Elector,  pro- 
vided that  he  kept  himself  free  from  alliances. 

Here  then  was  Melanchthon's  dilemma :  he  wanted  Philip 
to  unite  with  the  Lutherans,  else  he  might  join  the  Zwingli- 
ans; but  he  wanted  the  Elector  to  have  no  allies,  that  tlie 
Emperor  might  be  pleased  and  settle  the  matter.  Which 
horn  should  Melanchthon  take  ?  He  wrote  to  Luther :  Paeue 
consumor  miserimis  curis;  and  a  few  days  later  he  took  the 
plan  of  acting  on  his  own  responsibility,  and  negotiating 
secretly  with  the  officers  of  the  Emperor ! 


'='  Jonas  to  Luther,  Endirs,  VII,   380. 
i=»i6.,   VIII,    383. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    393 

June  12th,  Poitecost. 

WrriTSUXTIDE,    JUST   PRIOK   TO   THE   DIET. 

The  Eini)eror  is  spending  this  (lav  at  Munich,  while  at 
Aiigsbui'g  the  Elector  is  attending  the  jireaching  of  Urbanus 
Khcgius  in  the  church  of  St.  Catharine.'"' 

June  13th. 


On  Whitmonday  the  Emjieror  broke  up  at  Inusbriick,  and 
traveled  slowly  toward  Augsburg,  the  seat  of  the  coming 
conflict. 

June  15th-25th. 


II.     Period  of  Activity  and  Suspense. 
June  loth,  Wednesdn}/. 

RECEIVING   THE   EMPEROR. 
ACCOUNT  OF  THE  MEETIXC   AT  THE  BRIDGE  OF  THE  LECH,  AND 

130 

OF   THE   PROCESSION. 

This  was  the  day  on  which  the  Emperor  would  come.  For 
the  past  week  his  baggage  trains'^'  had  been  making  a  din  in 
the  Avaiting  city — the  home  of  the  Welsers  and  Fuggers,  the 
great  capitalists  of  Europe,  and  the  great  trading  centre  be- 
tween Italy  and  the  Levant,  and  the  towns  of  Js^orthern 
Europe. 

At  five  o'clock  "^  on  the  morning  of  the  15th,  the  Elector 
and  the  princes  assembled  in  the  town  hall.  At  one  in  the 
afternoon,  they  went  forth  on  horseback  to  meet  his  Majesty, 
and  stood  readv  for  his  comins;  at  the  bridge  of  the  Lech. 


'-^  Salig,  II,   163. 

'3"  "  Des  Allerdurchlauchtigsten,  Grosmachtigsten  Fiirsten  und  Herrn,  Hrn. 
Carolen,  Romischen  Kaysers,  etc.,  am  Nahman  des  V.,  einreitend  auf  den 
Reichstag  zu  Augspurg,  an  Mittwochen,  St.  Veit.s  Tag,  der  da  war  der  15. 
Tag  im  Brachmonat.  Ann.  1530." — Hardts,  out.  Luth.,  I,  267.  Cp.  Cyprian 
Beilarien  z.  Hist.  d.  Auf/s.  Co)if.,  p.  60  ;  Cblestin,  hist,  comit.  Aug.,  I,  p.  68  ; 
Schirrmacher,  Briefe  u.  Aden,  54  to  57. 

J"  C.  R.,  II,  90. 

^^^Forst.,  I,   263. 


394         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

After  some  hours  waiting,  cloiuls  of  dust  and  much  noise 
on  the  other  side  of  the  bridge  heralded  the  approach  of  the 
Emperor's  soldiery.  The  Electors  and  princes  were  recog- 
nized by  Charles  with  an  amiable  smile,  and  he  very  gra- 
ciously shook  hands  with  each.  He  had  no  sooner  alighted 
from  his  horse  for  the  greeting,  than  he  expressed  the  desire 
to  the  Elector  that  he  cause  the  preaching  to  cease."' 

The  archbishop  of  Maintz  delivered  the  address  of  wel- 
come. Apart  from  the  group,  on  a  little  elevation,"*  sat  the 
Roman  Legate  in  purple,  supported  by  two  cardinals,  the 
archbishop  of  Salsburg,  and  the  bishop  of  Trent.  When 
Campeggius  the  Legate  saw  the  Emj)eror  and  the  princes 
dismounted  and  greeting  each  other,  he  lifted  up  his  hands 
and  blessed  them.  They,  with  the  Spaniards,  Italians,  Neth- 
erlanders  and  Germans  in  the  train,  fell  on  their  knees ;  but 
the  Elector  John  and  his  fellow-Protestants  stood  bolt  upright 
and  refused  the  papal  benediction. 

The  magnificent  procession,  eclipsing '°  anything  heretofore 
seen  in  the  empire,  now  entered'^'  the  city,  with  the  soldiers 
of  the  six  electors  in  advance.  After  the  princes  and  electors, 
came  John  of  Saxony  bearing  the  glittering  naked  imperial 
sword  before  the  Emperor,  on  whose  riglit  was  Maintz  and 
on  whose  left  was  Koln,  with  King  Ferdinand  and  the  Papal 
legate   Campeggius"'   immediately   following. 

The  procession  '^  wended  its  way  to  the  Cathedral,  where 
the  bishop  of  Augsburg  and  his  Avhite-robed  clergy  struck  up 


"3  This  was  practically  his  first  word  to  the  Protestants.  The  Elector  him- 
self tells  the  story  in  his  letter  to  Luther  of  .June  25th.  He  says:  "So  soon 
as  his  imperial  Majesty  came  here  to  Augsburg  and  alighted  from  his  horse, 
he  desired  from  us,  and  those  with  us,  that  we  cease  the  preaching." — Colest., 
I,  139.  The  account  of  Chytraeus  confirms  this  scene  and  its  request  as 
having  taken  place  on  the  banks  of  the  Lech. — Hist.  A^ii/sp.   Conf.,  p.   54b. 

'^*  Forst.,  I,  256. 
^^Scck.,  II,   160. 

"'  Melanchthon  says  it  was  8  P.  M.  when  the  entry  was  made,  and  that  the 
procession  moved  very  slowly.      Virf.   Melanchthon   to  Luther,   about  June   20th. 

^"  It  is  recoraeu  that  when  the  procession  started,  the  legate  made  an  at- 
tempt, frustrated  by  the  Electors,  who  told  the  Emperor  to  ride  alone,  to  move 
forward  under  the  same  canopy  with  the  Emperor. — SaUg,  II,   178. 

iss  YoT  a  list  of  the  bishops,  etc.,  who  participated,  and  were  present  at  the 
Diet,  see  Colest.,  IV.   p.   121b. 


rnoVlDEXCE    and    the    august  an  a.    395 

the  Advenlstl  dcsi rah ills.  The  Em])eror  entered  the  Cathe- 
dral and  knelt  before  the  altar  with  hands  extended  to  heaven. 
Dnring  the  Te  ergo  quaesimus,  he  again  knelt  on  the  bare 
stones,  and  all  the  assembly  with  him.  But  the  Elector  and 
the  Landgrave  remained  standing.  Campeggius  pronounced 
the  benediction,  and  the  procession  resumed  its  march  to  the 
bishop's  palace,  Avhich  had  been  prepared  for  the  Emperor's 
use,  and  reached  there  after  ten  o'clock  at  night."' 


THE    NOCTURNAL    INTERVIEW    IN    THE    PALACE. 

From  five  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  ten  at  night  the  old 
Elector  had  been  kept  on  his  feet,  and  now  the  surprise  of 
the  day  was  to  be  sprung — "the  nocturns  of  treason  were 
about  to  begin."  "°  Charles  had  dealt  with  the  Protestants 
with  great  personal  grace ;  but,  after  waiting  till  evening  for 
his  appearance,  they  had  been  hurried  along  into  the  cere- 
monies of  state  under  the  auspices  of  the  Church.  It  was 
almost  impossible  to  distinguish  between  civil  and  religious 
duty.       To-morrow    the    Emperor    must    celebrate    Corpus 


^'"Sa^ir/  (II,  179,  180)  says:  "For  it  Is  doubtless  undeniable  that  scarce 
any  Diet  was  held  in  Germany  which  compared  with  this  Diet  in  multitude 
of  people,  splendeur  and  other  advantages.  The  Augsburg  Confession  was 
given  the  honor  by  God  of  being  heard  by  Emperor,  Kings  and  Princes,  by 
embassadors  from  all  the  lands  in  Europe,  and  of  being  read  by  an  indescrib- 
able multitude  of  people.  Hitherto  God's  Word  had  lain  concealed  beneath 
the  bench,  and  was  unknown  to  Princes  and  Lords,  to  clergy  and  laity.  Now 
it  resounded  in  the  whole  world  ...  so  that  at  a  Diet,  the  like  of  whiih 
Germany  never  saw  before,  and  probably  also  will  never  see  again,  it  sound-^d 
in  all  ears,  and  became  the  sensation  of  the  hour.  The  Word  of  Christ  (Matt. 
10:26,  27),  was  perfectly  fulfilled:  'There  is  nothing  concealed,  that  shall  not 
be  revealed.  What  I  say  unto  you  in  darkness,  that  speak  in  light  ;  and  what 
you  hear  in  your  ear.  that  preach  from  the  house-tops.'  ...  At  Nice  the 
Emperor  Constantine  the  Great  was  present  with  318  bishops.  Chalcedon 
shone  with  a  splendor  of  630  bishops.  But  at  Augsburg  there  was  an  Em- 
peror, a  King,  and  the  flower  of  the  Princes  of  the  German  nation.  At  the 
earlier  Councils,  innocence  was  at  times  suppressed,  and  the  truth  darkened  ; 
and  results  dwindled  down  into  a  war  of  words.  At  Augsburg  great  Electors 
and  Princes  themselves  were  the  confessors  of  divine  truth,  and  bore  the  Holy 
Word  to  the  ears  of  all   men. 

"  Where  then  is  there  a  Council  which  can  be  compared  with  this  Diet? 
At  the  Diet  at  Worms  the  truth  was  still  greatly  oppressed,  and  Luther  stood 
there  alone  and  confessed  it.  But  within  only  a  few  years  the  Gospel  had 
been  so  blessed  that  now  the  greatest  Princes  in  Germany  confessed  it,  and  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  was  now  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which  a  man  took 
and  sowed  in  a  field." 

"0  Spalatin. 


390         THE    LUr RERAN    COXFESSIONS. 

Christi ;  and  the  procession  of  tlie  lioly  sacrament  was  even 
then  being  arranged.  The  Lutherans  were  to  be  given  no 
time  to  think,  to  consult,  or  to  appeal,  but  were  to  be  involved 
by  the  swiftness  of  events,  the  exigencies  of  their  civil  posi- 
tions, the  personal  favor  and  grace  of  the  Emperor,  in  such  a 
way  that  later  on  they  would  not  consistently  be  able  to  take 
a  stand  against  the  Church. 

Charles  had  made  several  attempts  at  a  distance  to  get  them 
to  yield,  now  he  would  meet  them  on  the  spot,  and  try  his 
diplomacy  face  to  face.  After  the  Cathedral  service  the 
princes  entered  the  palace  with  the  Emperor.  Then  the 
Romanists  were  told  to  depart,  and  Charles  invited  the  Elec- 
tor, George  of  Brandenburg,  Philip  the  Landgrave,  the  Prince 
of  Anhalt  and  the  Duke  of  Liineburg  to  follow  him  into  his 
private  apartments."'  King  Ferdinand  accompanied  the 
party  as  interpreter. 

The  reader  should  notice  an  important  historical  fact  at 
this  point,  and  one  that  has  a  vital  bearing  on  the  most  im- 
portant change  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  L"p  to  this 
moment,  the  Emperor  had  dealt  Avith  his  beloved  uncle,  the 
old  Elector,  as  a  person  apart  from  the  other  Protestants.  He 
had  promised  the  Elector  special  favor  if  he  would  keep 
himself  free  from  all  alliances.  The  worthy  and  faithful  old 
prince  had  endeavored  punctiliously  to  live  up  to  this  under- 
standing. Even  his  Augsburg  Confession  was  to  have  been 
only  that  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

But  on  this  night  the  Emperor  was  unconsciously  or  de- 
liberately sweeping  all  the  ])ast  away.  He  was  not  dealing 
with  the  Eh^'tor  in  person,  but  he  singled  out  a  party  of  Pro- 
testants, bronght  them  into  his  owni  house,  and  dealt  with 
them  together.  That  act  released  John;  it  actually  placed 
him — whether  he  would  or  no — on  a  level  with  all  the  other 
Protestant  princes.  The  Emperor  himself  made  the  Protes- 
tant princes  co-defenders :  he  united  them ;  and  his  <act,  con- 
sidered as  an  external  act — not  the  Elector's,  nor  Melanch- 


C.  K.J  II,    106.  114. 


riiOr  I  DEXC  E    A  XL)    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.    397 

tlion's — took  the  taint  of  Saxon  particularity  out  of  the  Con- 
fessiou,  and  lifted  it  to  an  oecumenical  height. 

Behind  closed  doors,  Charles  through  Ferdinand  "requested 
of  their  electoral  and  princely  Graces  that  they  henceforth 
should  not  permit  preaching  in  Augsburg"  '"  during  the  sit- 
ting of  the  Diet.  So  this  meeting,  instead  of  manifesting  the 
ini])erial  favor,  promised  in  the  "Call"  and  looked  and  hoped 
for  ever  since,  was  only  to  reopen  the  one  throbbing  sore 
spot."'  The  Elector  and  the  IMargrave  turned  pale.  There 
was  silence.  "  Die  beede  iilte  Fiirsten  zum  hochsten 
entsetz."  "*  The  Margrave  spoke  up :  "  We  beg  your  ]\Ia- 
jesty  not  to  insist  on  your  request,"  he  said,  "  for  we  preach 
only  God's  pure  Word,  as  did  Augustine,  Hilary  and  the 
ancient  doctors.  Of  this  your  Majesty  may  convince  him- 
self. We  cannot  do  without  the  food  of  God's  Word,  or  deny 
the  Gospel  with  a  good  conscience."  *" 

When  Ferdinand  told  Charles  how  old  George  had  quoted 
the  ancient  doctors,  the  Emperor  flashed  up  in  anger,  and 
insisted  on  his  demand.  "But,"  said  Hessian  Philip,  "tho 
conscience  of  his  imperial  Majesty  is  not  the  lord  and  ruler 
over  our  conscience."  Twice  was  the  request  repeated ;  twice 
was  it  refused.  Then  Ferdinand  said,  "The  Emperor  w^ill 
not  withdraw  his  demand."  Turning  to  Charles,  the  old  Mar- 
grave of  Brandenburg  exclaimed :  "Before  I  would  deny  my 
God  and  His  Gospel,  I  woidd  kneel  do\\Ti  here  at  your  Ma- 
jesty's feet  and  have  my  head  struck  off." 

This  was  the  climax  that  night.  It  was  the  great  confes- 
sion at  Augsburg  that  it  is  better  to  die  than  to  compromise ; 
and  it  foiled  the  Emperor  for  a  moment.     He  directed  the 


"^  Chjjtraeus,  p.   40. 

'"  "When  we  came  to  the  Emperor's  lodging,  the  very  first  point  was  that 
the  preaching  should  be  stopped.  This  matter  was  disputed  over  for  three 
successive  days.  For  our  side  would  by  no  means  agree  to  demit  the  preach- 
ing, until,  after  a  lengthy  conflict,  it  came  to  the  point  that  the  Emperor  de- 
prived both  parties  of  the  sermons.  He  himself  had  someone  to  read  the 
Gospel  and  Epistle  without  explanation." — Melanchthon  to  Luther,  about  Juno 
20th. 

"♦  C.  R.,  II,  106,   114. 

"5/&.   115. 

29 


398         rill^:    LUTHEJIAN    CONFESSIONS. 

princes  to  transmit  in  writing  the  reason  why  they  were  un- 
willing to  dispense  with  the  preaching/"  Old  George's  "short 
and  rugged  speech,  though  eminently  respectful,  ended  with 
words  which  flew  over  Germany,  kindling  hearts  as  fire  lights 
flax." 

But  Ferdinand  was  ready  with  the  second  trap.  "Since 
his  Majesty,''  said  he,  "is  unable  to  stop  your  preaching,  he 
asks  that  you  will  at  least  observe  the  custom  of  accompanying 
him  in  the  procession  of  the  sacrament." 

The  princes  refused  unconditionally.  "Christ,"  said  they, 
"did  not  institute  His  sacrament  to  be  worshipped."  Charles 
persisted  in  this  demand,  and  the  Protestants  persisted  with 
equal  tenacity  in  their  refusal."'  Finally  the  Emperor  de- 
clared that  he  would  not  accept  their  reply,  and  that  they 
should  think  the  matter  over  during  the  night,  and  be  pre- 
pared to  reply  early  the  next  morning." 

This  day  and  night  of  June  15th  settled  the  future  of 
Protestantism  and  the  fate  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in 
the  mind  of  the  Elector.  The  death  of  Mercurinus  at  Inns- 
briick  ten  days  earlier,  had  already  been  a  note  of  warning 
as  to  the  danger  in  which  they  stood  ;  and  this  night  convinced 
the  Elector  that  there  was  nothing  to  hope  for  from  the  Em- 
peror, though  ]\[clanchthon  still  put  his  trust  in  him.  Already 
earlier  in  the  day,  the  Elector  and  his  advisers  had  adopted 
the  principle  of  admitting  the  other  Estates  to  the  Confession, 
and  a  German  text,  sent  to  Xuremberg,  now  already  contained 
the  phrase,  "A  common  word  which  can  be  applied  to  all 
Estates,"  "'  at  the  places  where  the  Latin  text  still  confined 
the  Confession  to  Saxony.  Xo  doubt  the  admission  of  the 
other  Estates  would  have  been  consummated  at  once,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  embarrassment  and  confusion  this  caused  the 
Elector  respecting  Melanchthon's  Introduction  to  the  Con- 
fession, which  would  then  have  had  to  be  given  up.""* 


"'  Chytraeus. 

"'  C.  R.,  II,  115. 

^*^  SaJir/,  11,  182,  says,  "Six  o'clock." 

'"  r.  R.,  II,  105. 

I'o  16. 


PROVIDENCE    AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.     399 

The  princes  left  the  Emperor's  palace  that  night  deeply 
stirred  in  soul,  and  the  Emperor  was  almost  beside  himself 
with  rage/"*  which  Campeggins  endeavored  to  fan  into  more 
lurid  flame.  Seckendorf"  narrates  that  the  Emperor,  too 
impatient  to  await  the  Protestant  answer,  sent  to  the  Elector 
for  the  decision  during  the  middle  of  the  night.  "At  the 
present  moment  we  need  sleep,"  exclaimed  the  Elector ;  "  to- 
morrow we  will  advise  you  of  our  decision.""* 

A    DEMAND    FOR    COPIES    OF    THE    PROPOSED    CONFESSION. 

Quite  naturally,  as  all  the  princes  were  now  co-operating, 
and  as  Vogler  proposed  to  at  once  hand  the  doctrinal  articles 
to  the  Emperor,  there  arose  an  unusual  demand  for  the  Con- 
fession just  at  this  time.  It  is  natural,  too,  that  the  copies 
made  and  j)laced  in  the  hands  of  the  princes,  should  be  re- 
tained by  them  for  consultation  during  the  Diet,  and  should 
afterwards  be  taken  home.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  all  the 
copies  of  the  Confession  that  are  extant  from  the  time  before 
its  presentation,  including  Spalatin's  written  in  his  own 
hand,  do  go  back  to  this  very  period. 

Thursday,  June  16th. 

REFUSING  THE  IMPERIAL  REQUEST  ON  THE  MORNING  OF 
CORPUS  CHRISTI. 

It  was  no  wonder  that  the  poor  Elector,  now  thoroughly 
worn  out,  Ix^came  ill  during  the  night,  and  could  not  mount 
his  horse  next  morning  at  seven'"^  o'clock,  with  the  princes 
and  the  counsellors  Avho  went  back  to  the  Emperor's  palace. 
It  is  little  wonder  that  the  restless  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was 
as  deeply  stirred  as  the  Emperor.    As  soon  as  he  reached  home 


"1  C.  R.,  II,    116. 

^52  II,    161. 

"'  About  June  20th,  the  Elector  wrote  to  Luther :  "We  plead  with  hla 
Majesty  the  same  evening,  also  the  following  day,  respectfully,  but  giving  many 
good  reasons.      But  we  were  not  able  to  succeed." — Colestin,  I,  139. 

1^  Salig   says   they   were   to   be  on  hand  at   "  Six   o'clock." 


400         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

that  night,  he  sent  his  adviser  to  wake  up  the  jSTureniberg 
delegates  and  let  them  know  all  that  had  occurred/"  The 
demand  of  Charles  had  that  night  yet  been  placed  before  the 
Lutheran  theologians,  and  Spalatin  wrote  out  the  Protestant 
Opinion  before  morning.  It  said :  ''The  sacrament  was  not 
instituted  to  be  worshipped  like  the  brazen  serpent  of  the 
Jews.  We  are  here  to  confess  the  truth,  and  not  to  confirm 
abuses.'' 

AVljen  the  little  party  arrived  at  the  Emperor's  palace  the 
next  morning,  George,  the  old  Margrave,  was  their  spokes- 
man, the  Elector  being  represented  bv  his  son.  Said  George 
to  the  Emperor:  ''My  ancestors  and  I  have  always  sup- 
ported you ;  but  in  the  things  of  God,  the  commands  of  God 
compel  me  to  put  aside  the  command  of  man.  If,  as  we  are 
told,  death  is  to  be  the  fate  of  those  who  persevere  in  the  true 
doctrine,  I  am  ready  to  suffer  it."  Offering  the  Emperor  the 
Opinion""  of  the  Protestants,  lie  said :  "We  will  not  coun- 
tenance these  human  traditions,  opposed  to  the  Word  of  God, 
with  our  presence;  on  the  contrary,  we  declare  unitedly  that 
we  must  expel  them  from  the  Church,  lest  those  of  its  mem- 
bers that  are  still  sound  should  be  affected  with  this  deadly 

,,    157 

poison. 

To  this  Ferdinand  replied  :  "If  tlic  love  of  God  will  not 
impel  you  to  go  with  the  Emperor,  tlien  do  so  for  the  love  of 
the  Emperor,  and  as  vassals  and  princes  of  the  Empire.  His 
]\lajesty  commands  you.  He  begs  you."  The  Princes  re- 
plied :  "This  is  an  act  of  worship,  and  our  conscience  forbids 
it."  The  Emperor  had  taken  his  last  step  and  exhausted  his 
last  resource ;  and  now,  after  all  the  planning  from  Innsbriick 
down,  had  lost  the  cause.  Saying,  "We  wish  to  see  whether 
you  will  obey  his  ]\Iajesty  or  not,"  '^  Ferdinand,  with  the 
Emperor,  left  the  room,  and  the  princes,  instead  of  following, 
reiurncd  to  their  qwirters. 


"^  C.  R.,   II,   106. 

1.-.6  The  Document   is  found   in   Colcstin,  I,   82. 

^"  76.,   84  ;    Chi/traetis,   p.    41. 

'58  C.  R.,  II,  108. 


PBOVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.     401 

That  day  at  noon,  behind  the  host,  carried  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Maintz,  the  Emperor  marched  alone  with  his  head 
bare,  and  a  taper  in  his  hand,  with  scarcely  one  Inindred  citi- 
zens of  Angsburg  following  him  in  the  procession  of  Corpus 
Christi,  So  irritated  was  he  on  his  return  to  the  palace  that 
he  threatened  that  he  would  dismiss  the  Lutherans  to  their 
homes  with  a  safe-conduct  next  day,'°'  and  the  Diet  would 
uphold  the  Church  and  the  empire  without  them.  But  the 
German  Catholic  princes  saw  that  this  would  lead  to  terrible 
war,  and  they  supplicated  his  Majesty,  asking  him  to  wait 
till  his  anger  should  cool.""* 


MELANCHTIION  S  SIIORT-CTJT. 

In  this  crisis,  with  that  sad  and  unconscious  lack  of  a  sense 
of  public  loyalty  to  those  who  were  near  him,  between  Corpus 
Christi  day  and  the  following  Saturday,  that  is  between  the 
IGth  and  the  19th  of  June,  when  the  princes  in  the  contest 
with  the  Emperor  were  staking  their  very  lives  for  the  Truth, 
Philip  ]\relanchthon,  who  was  always  terrified  at  the  mere 
thought  of  war,  went  privately,  on  his  own  responsibility, 
and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Elector,  into  negotiations 
of  his  own'"'  with  the  Spanish  imperial  secretary,  Alphonso 
Valdes,  and  through  him  with  the  Emperor,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  convincing  the  Emperor  and  the  legate  of  the  Pope 
that  the  Protestants  were  not  as  bad  as  they  looked,  and  of 
arranging  a  way  in  which  a  public  Confession  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church  might  be  avoided  and  the  whole  Church  brought 
back  into  the  bosom  of  Rome/ " 


'=*  CocMarus,  193. 

«*  76. 

'«  "In  his  anxiety  he  sought  to  gain  touch  with  the  imperial  secretaries, 
immediately  after  the  arrival  of  the  Emperor.  For  Melanchthon's  initiative 
against  Maurenbrecher,  Kath.  Ref.,  p.  284,  see  my  information  in  M.  Luther. 
II,    592." — Kolde. 

''^  The  details  of  this  secret  movement  are  described  in  the  Chapter  on 
''Melanchthon's  Unsuccessful  Attempts  as  a  Diplomatist."  Vid.  also  Kolde, 
Luther.  II,  34.3;  Virck,  Mel.  polit.  Stellunij  uuf  d.  Rtichstaye  zu  Augshurn, 
Z.    K.    S.,    IX    (1888),   pp.   92   sq. 


m        THE   LUTEEBAN   COXFESSIOXS. 

The  terrible  clash  of  the  niglit  of  the  15th,  with  the  Em- 
peror's attempt  to  force  the  hand  of  the  Evangelical  party  by 
a  cessation  of  preaching  and  a  participation  in  the  feast  of 
Corpns  Christi,  had  impressed  the  fearful  Melanchthon  so 
deeply  that  he  was  consumed  with  the  desire  to  settle  the 
matter  himself  and  as  soon  as  possible.  He  had  sought  to  get 
into  touch  with  both  tlie  imperial  secretaries.  With  the 
Flemish  secretary,  Cornelius  Scliepper,  he  had  held  his  first 
conversation  the  next  day,  June  16th,  but  Schepper  was 
reticent  and  gave  him  to  understand  that  the  Emperor 
was  determined  to  move  against  the  Lutherans."'  Though 
Melanchthon  was  told  there  was  no  hope  for  peace,  as,  since 
the  death  of  Mercurinus,  no  one  of  authority  in  the  imperial 
court  leaned  their  way,  he  took  the  one  last  recourse.  After 
Schepper's  rebuff,  he  went  to  the  Spanish  secretary,  Valdes,*" 
and  succeeded  in  making  him  feel  that  the  main  points  for 
which  the  Lutherans  would  contend  were  only  the  twofold 
form  of  the  sacrament,  the  marriage  of  the  priests,  and  the 
abolishment  of  private  masses. 


TJnirsdai/,  June  IGtli  (Continued). 

THE  PROTESTANTS  NOW  FORM  A  CLOSED  PARTY. 

Erom  tliis  day  on,  the  Evangelical  princes  act  together  as 
a  common  party.  The  night  before  they  had  together  deter- 
mined not  to  omit  the  preaching,  and  refused  to  participate 
in  to-day's  procession."'  That  they  regarded  themselves  as  a 
closed  party'"  may  be  seen  from  the  title  of  the  document 


'^'  "  Aneas  Silvius  himself,"  said  Schepper.  "  before  he  became  Pope,  had 
written:  The  Roman  Court  gives  nothing  without  money:  even  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  are  being  sold.'  " — Epxst.  66,  Ed.  1496.  Noribergae  publicata 
per  Antonium  Koberyer.     Vid.  Cyprian,  p.  8. 

'"  C.  R.,  II.  118  sq.,  122. 

'"  7b.,   106. 

"•■«  FOrstcmann,  I,  215. 


PROVIDEXCE    AND    THE    AUGUSTAXA.    403 

which  the  ]\Iargrave  of  Brandenburg's  Chancellor,  Vogler, 
presented  at  their  common  meeting  to-day.  The  title  reads: 
"Certain  considerations  why  my  clement  lord,  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  Margrave  George  of  Brandenburg,  Duke  Ernest  and 
Duke  Francis  of  Brunswick  and  Liineburg,  Philip,  Landgrave 
of  Hesse,  and  AYolfgang,  Prince  of  Anhalt,  has  given  con- 
sent to  set  aside  the  party  of  liis  electoral,  the  present  Grace." 
Vogler  actually  proposed  that  the  Evangelical  Party  at 
once  hand  over  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Confession  to  the 
Emperor  so  as  to  convince  him  that  their  party  was  really 
orthodox.  But  the  old  Elector,  who  had  now  had  experience 
after  experience  with  the  Emperor,  and  who  possibly  recalled 
how  little  his  own  effort  in  this  direction  had  accomplished 
when  he  sent  up  the  Schwabach  Articles  to  the  Emperor, 
•  negatived  the  proposition. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  PREACHING  ONCE  MORE. 

Thus  had  passed  the  feast  of  Corpus  Christi.  The  Protes- 
tants did  not  celebrate.  But  the  preaching  in  the  churches 
was  a  more  serious  matter,  for  it  continued  every  day,  and 
was  creating  excitement  among  the  public.  Some  of  the 
Zwinglian  sermons  were  very  bold  in  their  veiled  allusion  to 
present  events.  On  the  night  of  June  loth,  the  Emperor  had 
insisted  on  a  written  reply  to  his  demand.  The  Princes,  at 
their  meeting  of  June  IGth,  determined  not  to  omit  the 
preaching,  and  that  on  the  following  day  they  would  deliver 
a  written  explanation  to  his  imperial  Majesty."' 


Friday,  June  17th. 

Accordingly,  on  the  morning  of  June  ITth,  before  break- 
fast, and  doubtless  after  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  had  trans- 
mitted to  them  his  explanation  to  the  Lutheran  position  to  be 


^^'^  Report  of  the  Nuremhergers,  June  leth,  C.  R.,  II,   108. 


404         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

given  to  Charles  on  the  matter  of  preaching,  the  Princes 
handed  in  their  reply,  written  by  Briick,  to  the  Emperor : — 

The  Answer  of  the  Protestant  Elector  and  Princes  to  the  Request 
OF  His  Roman  Imperial  Majesty  that  his  Electoral  and  Princely 
Grace  Should  not  Allow  Preaching  During  the  Diet. 

Original  in  Archives  at  Weimar. 
Printed  in  Fiirst  ,  I,  i!83;  Chytr.,  88. 

1.  Most  excellent,  mighty  and  invincible  Emperor,  most  gracious  Lord. 
Since  your  Majesty  to-day  gave  us  an  instruction  that  we  should  transmit  our 
conclusion  in  writing,  for  your  further  consideration:  in  obedience  thereunto  we 
now  announce  and  repeat  in  this  our  writing,  that  your  Majesty  should  graciously 
note,  that  if  we  find  our  preachers  proclaiming  new  things,  and  teaching  what  is 
not  grounded  in  the  Holy  Scripture  or  is  contradictory  to  our  holy  Faith,  we  shall 
not  willingly  permit  it,  hut  will  array  ourselves  against  it.  We  wish  them  to 
preach  and  explain  the  Gospel  clearly  and  purely,  and  even  as  it  was  preached 
and  taught  by  the  worthiest  and  most  faithful  Fathers  in  the  holy  Christian 
Church,  as  your  imperial  decree,  at  your  Majesty's  Diet  in  Niirnberg,  in  1523, 
publicly  declared  should  be  the  case. 

If  now  such  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel  were  discontinued,  as  though  it 
were  false  doctrine,  it  would  be  terrible.  It  would'stand  before  God  (Who  does 
not  want  His  holy  Word  bound)  as  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

We  also,  as  poor  sinful  people,  need  such  preaching  and  proclaiming  of 
God's  Word,  to  console  our  con.science,  and  to  find  help  therein  from  God  in  our 
daily  neces.sities  and  obligations.  As  little  as  we  can  forbid  the  daily  food  of  the 
body,  so  much  less  can  we  be  without  the  sermon  and  proclamation  of  the  Divine 
Word,  since  man  liveth  not  by  bread  alone  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out 
of  the  mouth  of  God.  As  we  also  declared  to  your  brother,  King  Ferdinand,  and 
the  appointed  commissioners,  four  years  ago  at  your  imperial  Majesty's  called  Diet 
of  Spires. 

2.  And  even  if  the  preaching  were  different,  yet  your  imperial  Majesty  and 
everybody  knows  that  there  is  a  dissension  in  doctrine.  Wherefore  and  for 
other  reasons  your  Majesty  called  this  Diet,  that  each  one's  opinion  and  meaning 
should  here  be  heard,  and,  if  error  be  found,  it  should  on  both  sides  be  settled  and 
brought  into  Christian  unity. 

3.  On  this  account  we  ask  your  Majesty  to  graciously  consider  how  our  con- 
sciences could  be  satisfied  if,  while  there  was  other  preaching  elsewhere,  we  had 
none,  and  could  hear  only  the  other  preaching. 

4.  This  would  compel  us,  against  our  conscience,  if  we  consented  to  it,  to 
adjudge  our  doctrine  as  wrong,  and  the  opposite  as  right,  before,  according  to 
your  Call  to  this  Diet,  the  matters  not  right  on  both  sides  were  adjusted.  For 
it  must  follow,  if  we  give  up  our  preaching  and  hear  another,  that  we  are  in 
essence  and  in  effect  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  our  doctrine,  .since  it  is  done 
away  with,  would  be  erroneous  ;  and  the  other,  since  we  are  hearing  and  accept- 
ing it,  would  be  right. 

5.  For  what  is  done  away  with  must,  according  to  your  own  Call  and  all 
human  reason,  be  wrong  at  that  time,  and  that  which  is  ordained  must  be  right. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    ACGi'srANA.    -iU5 

And  if  there  should  be,  as  we  can  well  judge,  little  further  done  in  these  most 
weighty  matters  relating  to  our  salvation,  it  would  be  directly  against  your  own 
Call,  which  so  clearly  involves  that  each  one  shall  be  heard  first,  and  then  that 
which  has  not  been  done  right  on  both  sides,  on  the  other  no  less  than  on  this, 
and  not  only  on  our  side,  shall  be  done  away  with. 

6.  If  your  Majesty  should  be  informed  by  anyone  that  we  preach  novelties, 
it  is  our  judgment,  as  we  yesterday  declared,  that  the  clear  Gospel  is  preached  and 
explained  by  us  as  it  was  by  the  most  worthy  and  prominent  fathers  of  the  Church 
according  to  the  Scripture,  and  that  neither  anything  else,  nor  any  novelty  is  being 
preached. 

7.  And  suppose  there  were  novelties  or  abuses  in  our  preaching,  your 
Majesty  nevertheless  knows  what  terrible  novelties  in  doctrines,  customs  and  life 
have  been  introduced  against  .Scripture  and  the  Fathers,  on  the  other  side,  and 
are  still  being  practised,  so  that  the  whole  world,  and  the  pious  before  our  age, 
have  lamented  and  complained,  and  do  so  to-day.  Let  your  Majesty  recall  what 
remarkable  abuses  were  brought  before  you  at  the  first  Diet  at  Worms,  which  are 
unchanged  to  this  day. 

8.  And  we  state  all  this  simply  to  indicate  to  your  Majesty  what  partial  and 
unequal  treatment  the  opposite  party  expects  and  demands  from  you. 

9.  We  know  that  our  preachers  give  no  offense  to  the  conscience.  But,  as 
we  said  yesterday,  if  there  be  any  one  whose  conscience  has  been  given  offense, 
we  will  require  a  report  of  our  preachers  concerning  it. 

10.  But  what  offense  would  we  not  give  to  our  neighbor's  faith  and  love,  if 
the  report  went  out  that  we  were  willing  to  cease  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  thus 
in  essence  condemn  our  own  doctrine  as  wrong  ?  How  could  we  give  answer  to 
God  our  Judge  ? 

11.  We  hav^  also  admonished  our  preachers  and  people,  after  the  sermon, 
to  pray  diligently  for  grace  for  your  Majesty  as  the  divinely  ordained  authority, 
and  for  the  Electors,  princes  and  estates  that  the  business  transacted  at  this  Diet 
would  eventuate,  to  the  praise  of  God,  in  Christian  peace  and  Christian  unity. 

12.  The  people  are  also  faithfully  instructed  against  certain  doctrines  con- 
cerning the  Sacrament,  which  would  be  much  more  dangerous  if  our  preachers 
were  silent. 

13.  If  we  should  cease  preaching,  we  would  be  condemned  by  our  own 
consciences,  as  being  responsible  for  the  ruin  of  those  who  were  thus  misled.  For 
these  disputed  matters  have  been  discussed  for  some  years  past;  and  at  both  the 
Diets  of  Spires  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  was  preached  openly  and  in  an  orderly 
way,  with  which  it  was  impossible  to  find  fault. 

14.  To  this  all,  we  did  not  take  it  that  the  edict  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  of  one 
year  ago  required  that  we  should  now  agree  to  the  cessation  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel. 

15.  It  has  also  been  the  free  and  undisputed  right  of  your  ancestors,  and  of 
those  of  the  Electors  and  Princes  (except  that  at  both  the  last  Diets  of  Spires  the 
churches  were  denied  us  for  the  free  preaching  of  the  Gospel),  that  each  one 
might  order  his  preacher  to  preach  the  divine  Word  publicly  in  the  Church  before 
him  and  all  others  who  should  attend. 

Ifi.  If  we  should  yield  to  the  abolishment  of  the  preaching,  this  would  be 
understood  by  many  that  your  Majesty  had  decided  against  us  unheard,  after  your 


40G         THE    LUTHERAN    COXEESSIONS. 

Call  has  been  published  throughout  the  Empire,  and  every  one,  no  matter  of 
which  estate,  is  looking  toward  dod  and  yourself  in  the  hope  that  these  most 
serious  matters  will  be  disposed  of  aright  and  according  to  God's  unchangeable 
truth.  We  also  are  assured  that  your  Majesty  will  act  in  no  other  manner  than 
your  Majesty  has  announced  in  his  Call.  We  therefore  most  humbly  pray  your 
Majesty,  as  we  have  done  the  past  two  days,  that  you  would  graciously  regard 
this  explanation  as  coming  from  obedient  and  well-meaning  hearts,  and  would 
venture  to  spare  us  from  the  intended  prohibition  of  our  preaching,  and  would 
permit  us,  as  at  Spires  and  here  up  to  the  present,  to  let  our  preachers  preach. 

All  the  more  will  we  confess  ourselves,  in  matters  that  pertain  to  our  body, 
property  and  means,  as  your  obedient  electors  and  princes. 

Datura,  Friday  after  Corpus  Christi  (June  17th),  )ear,  etc.,  1530. 
John,  Duke  of  Saxony  Elector, 
Gkorc.e,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
Ernest,  Duke  of  Brunswick  and  Liineburg, 
Philipp,  Landgrave  of  Hesse, 
Wolf.  Prince  of  Anhalt. 


THE    ASSEMBLY    OX    FRIDAY,    JUISTE    17tH. 

This  was  the  moniing  of  Friday,  the  17th.  Charles  at 
once  convened  the  electors  and  princes  to  deliberate  concern- 
ing this  answer.  They  assembled  after  noon,'**  and  remained 
in  session  until  evening.  The  Emperor  was  very  mnch  stirred 
against  the  Evangelicals  at  this  meeting,  and  seemed  deter- 
mined to  repeat  and  enforce  his  command  against  the  preach- 
ing. For,  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  the  milder  ones  of 
our  party — who  had  advised  that  the  preaching  be  held  off 
for  one  day  longer,  in  anticipation  of  the  imperial  reply — 
that  very  morning  the  preacher  of  the  margrave  George, 
whose  turn  it  was,  had  preached  before  the  Evangelicals  in 
the  Church  of  St.  Catharine.'**  This  so  incensed  the  Em- 
peror that  the  Diet  would  probably  have  come  to  nothing,  had 
not  several  Princes  leaped  into  the  breach  to  make  matters 
right. 


^^Chytr.,   42;   Seclc..   165;   C.   R..  II,   113.      Salig,  II,   183,   says  "forenoon," 
but  the  two  statements  are  reconcilable. 
"' Haliff,  II,  183,  184. 


PnoriDEXCE   AXD    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.    407 

''  At  last  the  mediators  clio.se  a  committee  ""  from  among 
themselves  which  came"'  to  our  princes  on  Saturday  noon, 
and  urgently  begged  them  to  yield  to  his  Majesty  and  silence 
the  preaching.  For  his  Majesty  desired  this  from  the  oppo- 
site party  also/"  and  if  both  parties  -would  cease  from  preach- 
ing, his  Majesty  himself  would  undertake  to  handle  the  affair 
in  accordance  with  the  Call."  " 

It  was  proposed  that  Charles  himself  appoint  persons  who 
would  read  nothing  but  the  text  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles, 
and  a  general  confession  of  sins.  ''  Our  party,"  says  Chytra- 
us,  "  emphasized  their  Christian  need,  as  rendering  them  un- 
able to  assent;  but  since  his  Majesty  has  given  notice  that 
he  is  in  authority  in  this  city,  and  the  decree  of  the  first  Diet 
of  Spires  decided  that  every  authority  should  decide  in  this 
matter  as  they  Avould  be  able  to  give  ansAver  to  God  and  his 
Majesty,  and  since  our  princes  are  outside  their  domain,  they 
would  not  oppose  his  Majesty,  although  they  were  not  willing 
to  do  without  preaching,  but  had  to  do  and  suffer  his  ^la- 
jesty's  affairs."* 

Friday,  June  17th. 

A  PRIVATE  PROTESTANT  SEAXCE. 

While  the  stately,  discriminate  and  enduring  reply  of  the 
Lutheran  princes  was  being  given  to  the  Emperor,  and  de- 
voted old  Duke  George  of  Brunswick  was  again  offering  to 


""  The  Committee  was  composed  of  the  Archbishop  of  Maintz  (according  to 
Colestin,  p.  89  ;  Midler  makes  it  the  Elector  of  Cologne,  p.  548),  the  younger 
Margrave  Joachim  of  Brandenburg,  the  Electoral  Palatine,  Master  of  the  Court 
Lud.  V.  Fleckstein,  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  Albert  of  Mecklenburg,  and  Ludwig 
of  Bavaria. 

'"  For  a  difference  on  this  point,  and  for  a  clear,  detailed  description  of 
these  negotiations,  !((/.  Salig,  II.  184,  185.  But  Salig's  date  on  p.  185  is  a 
typographical  error,  and  should  read  June  17th,  not  10th. 

172  fj,  ''the  opposite  party"  it  was  not  a  great  hardship,  since  Rome  does  not 
lay  stress  on  preaching. 

"'  Chytr.,  44-45. 

"*  Ih.,  45.  Chytraeus  adds  that  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Maintz  were  unusually  well-disposed  in  this  matter — more  so  than 
could  have  been  expected. 


408         THE    LUTHER  Ay    CONFESS  10  XS. 

die  for  his  faith,  Valdes  came'''  hurrying  to  a  private  seance 
with  the  Emperor,  bearing  a  tale,  concerning  the  Lutherans, 
of  a  different  kind.  He  reported  that  the  Elector's  leading 
theologian  had  approached  him  privately  on  behalf  of  the 
Protestants  with  a  way  of  bringing  the  whole  trouble  to  a 
close,  if  the  Romanists  would  but  yield  on  a  few  points. 
Such  an  oifer  was  most  opportune  for  the  Emperor,  and  he 
promptly  grasped  it>  The  presentation  of  Melanehthon  was 
transmitted  to  the  papal  legate  Campeggius  for  consideration. 

Saturdaij,  June  ISfh. 

MELAKCHTHOX  HEARS  FROM  VALDES,  AND  THE  ELECTOR 
HEARS  FROM  THE  EMPEROR. 

Valdes'  negotiations  move  swiftly.  He  has  seen  the  Em- 
peror and  Campeggius,  and  the  Emperor  'again,  and  this 
morning  has  a  message  from  ]\Ielanchthon ;  for  the  Xurem- 
bergers  write  home,  "  Above-mentioned  Alphonse  undertook 
to  deliver  said  report,  and  on  Saturday  invited  Philippus 
again.''  And  Melanehthon  himself  wrote  to  Luther,  prob- 
ably on  June  20th,  in  his  usual  tone,  in  corresponding  with 
Luther,  of  disarming  suspicion :  "  A  certain  Spanish  con- 
fidential secretary  has  also  promised  everything  good,  and 
has  just  held  a  conference  with  the  Emperor  and  Campeg- 
gius concerning  my  Opinion;  but  everything  lies  with  God." 

Philip  is  told  by  Valdes  that  the  Emperor  had  long  been 
desirous  of  effecting  harmony  without  extended  discussion; 
that  the  Emperor  is  pleased  and  the  Papal  Legate  looks  with 
favor  on  his  private  proposition ;  and,  that  they  may  come  at 
once  to  a  definite  transaction,  the  Emperor  commands  him 
to  present  the  jwints  of  controversy  in  briefest  form,  "in 
order  to  be  able  to  consider  the  matter  if  possible  in  all 
privacy  and  quiet."  "' 


■"*  There   is   no  proof  positive  that  Valdes'   interview  with  the   Emperor   took 
place  on  the  17th,  but  the  probability  that  this  was  the  date  is  strong. 
"•  Lammer,    Monumcnta    Vaticana,   43   sq.  ;    Hchirrmacher,   71    sq. 


PROV IPEXC I-:    AXD    THE    ArGi'STAXA.    409 

Report  of  the  Dealing  of  Valdes  with  Phii.ip  Melanx  hthon. 

From  an  old  anonymous  Report  of  June  18th,  ascribed  by  Wnlch  to  Spalatin. 
AVittg.,  IX,  4U9b  sqq.;  Leipz.,  XX,  202  sqq. 

Alfonso,  his  Majesty's  Spanish  chancellor,  also  Cornelius,  have  held  several 
friendly  conversations  with  Philip,  have  shown  him  that  the  Spaniards  are  per- 
suaded that  the  Lutherans  do  not  believe  in  God  [etc.]. 

On  Saturday  evening  Alfonso  sent  for  Philip  and  announced  to  him  that  he 
had  been  with  his  Majesty  that  morning,  and  for  a  long  time  had  not  had  a  more 
comfortable  time  and  place  to  speak  with  bis  Majesty  ;  that  he  had  given  his 
Majesty  instruction  concerning  all  the  Lutheran  Articles;  and  that  they  do  not 
believe  anything  against  the  church.  His  Majesty  then  said,  "Quid  volunt  de 
monachis?"  and  ordered  Alfonso  to  tell  Philip  that  he  should  transmit  a  very 
brief  description  to  his  Majesty.  This  Philip  accordingly  did,  and  therefore  he 
also  ordered  Alfonso  to  go  to  the  Legate  and  to  come  to  agreement  with  him  con- 
cerning the  matter.  This  also  happened,  and  the  hitch  is  by  all  odds  the  greatest 
in  the  matter  of  the  mass.  God  be  praised,  there  is  good  hope.  The  Emperor 
would  gladly  help  in  the  matter,  and  God  has  also  given  him  means  thereto. 

So  Melanchthon's  eye  is  filled  with  a  l)rilliant  rainbow  of 
peace  which  he  has  spanned  between  Wittenberg  and  Rome, 
and  looks  to  see  the  dark  bosom  of  the  cloud  dissolve,  even 
thongh  his  own  Electoral  superiors  are  madly  persisting  on 
this  very  day  in  their  refusal  to  desist  from  preaching  in  the 
Emperor's  city. 


AT    PROTESTANT    HEADQUAKTEKS. 

And  the  skies  seem  to  brighten.  By  noon  a  Committee  of 
German  Catholics  appointed  by  the  Emperor  arrives  and 
offers  to  forbid  the  Roman  preaching  during  the  Diet,  if 
the  Lutherans  will  agree  to  cease  theirs.  The  proposition 
does  not  suit  the  Elector:  as  a  spiritual  man  he  needs  his 
preaching,  and  now  more  than  ever ;  but  as  a  judicial  offer 
of  the  common  ruler,  it  is  fair.  What  shall  be  done  ?  IMel- 
anchthon  is  ready  with  an  Opinion "'  in  five  brief  points, 
showing  why  the  temporary  cessation  should  be  agreed  to ; 
and  in  the  end  the  Elector  and  the  Lutheran  princes  yield 
to  the  committee.     There  is  to  be  no  preaching  at  all  in  the 


"'  CiJlcstiii,   I,   89  ;    C.   R.,   II,    111. 


410        THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

chnrches  of  Augsburg  to-morrow.  This  does  not  mean  com- 
promise with  Rome,  but  respect  for  pending  judicial  process. 

His  Majesty  acted  with  celerity ;  and  in  a  few  hours  he  had 
appointed  preachers,  with  fixed  instructions  to  only  read  the 
service.  That  evening  heralds  went  through  all  the  streets 
.and  cried"'  that  no  one  should  preach  in  Augsburg  except 
those  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  under  penalty  of  corporal 
punishment."" 

This  created  a  great  sensation,  and  all  were  eager  to  know 
what  would  happen  on  Sunday.'"" 

At  the  Lutheran  headquarters,  meantime,  the  Elector  and 
the  Margrave  were  promising  to  receive  the  l^urembergers 
into  the  Confession ;  but  Jonas,  who  knew  from  Melanchthon 
of  the  latter's  conversation  of  two  days  ago  with  Valdes,  sat 
dowm  and  was  reporting  it  to  Luther. 

The  Emperor  had  become  deeply  concerned  in  the  situa- 
tion ;  and  when,  on  Saturday  evening,  the  Augsburg  Chapter 
came  to  him  with  the  customary  gift,  he  not  only  received 
them  in  person,  but  requested  them  to  pray  God  for  him  a 
poor  sinner,  tliat  he  might  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
establish  one  c(mimon  Christian  order,  and  not  anger  God. 
"Wobei  ihm  die  Augen  iibergangen."  '" 


Sunday,  June  19th. 

NO  PREACHING  IN  AUGSBURG. 

The  churches  were  filled,  and  the  Roman  sermon  was  gone 
through   without  preaching,   according  to   agreement.      The 


"*  "  Hear,  hear,  hear  what  his  Roman  imperial  Majesty  commands :  No 
preacher  here  at  Augsburg,  be  he  who  he  may,  shall  hereafter  preach,  except 
those  appointed  by  his  Majesty,  to  avoid  his  Majesty's  greatest  punishment  and 
disfavor." — (German)    Seek.,  p.    1039. 

'"  Chytr.,  p.  45.  The  Elector,  in  agreeing  to  the  measure  reluctantly,  had 
remarked  that  he  expected  to  hear  preaching  in  his  own  quarters  when  he  so 
desired. — C.  R.,  II,  113.  The  prohibition  was  to  have  been  only  temporary, 
but  it  continued  throughout  the  Diet.- — Salig,  II,   185. 

•s»  Omnes  hunc  avidissime  expectant. — C.  R.,  II,   116. 

1"  C/ii/fr.,   p.   46;   Salitj,   II,   186. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.     411 

people  were  moved  to  laughter.'"  After  the  sermon,  the  mass 
was  celebrated.  The  Emperor  was  strictly  obeyed,  and  most 
of  the  Protestant  preachers  had  left  the  city  to  preach  where 
they  were  wanted."* 

The  Elector  was  downcast  without  the  preaching  of  God's 
Word.     "Silence  is  imposed  on  the  Word  of  God  itself,"  he 

•    1    184 

said. 

When  Luther  lieard""  of  these  proceedings,  his  favorable 
opinion  of  the  Emperor  was  somewliat  modified  at  last,  and 
on  June  .'50th  he  wrote: — 

Luther  to  Agricola. 
Cod.  Jen.  B.  24,  n.  fol.  16:i';  DeWette,  IV,  p.  57;  Buddeus.p.  119. 

My  thought  of  the  situation  is  thus:  that  the  end  of  the  Diet  will  be  that  the 
Emperor  will  try  and  compel  the  Elector  to  renounce  the  whole  doctrine.  That 
is  my  opinion,  and  it  will  be  the  severest  result  of  this  Diet.  Admonish  Philip 
that  he  moderate  the  offering  of  an  anxious  spirit,  so  that  at  least  he  may  not  be 
lacking  in  that  wherewith  to  offer.  It  is  no  doubt  a  great  comfort  to  know  that 
he  is  worrying  himself  in  a  good  cause  and  for  God's  sake,  since  he  cannot  doubt 
that  it  pleases  (jod  as  a  sweet  incense.  But  moderation  is  good  in  all  things: 
sacrifice  pleases  God,  but  not  grieving  one's  self  to  death.  For  God  takes  no 
pleasure  in  our  destruction.     To  think  so  comes  from  Satan. 

For  to  put  hope  in  the  Emperor's  good  will  amounts  to  nothing.'^  In  my 
belief  the  Pope  and  the  bishops  have  influenced  the  Emperor,  so  to  hear  the  case, 
that,  after  our  reply  is  made,  they  can  still  conclude  what  they  desire,  and  never- 
theless preserve  the  reputation  of  having  given  us  a  gracious  hearing.  Thus  they 
will  be  able  to  complain  more  plausibly  of  our  obstinacy,  as  though  we  had  been 
patiently  heard  on  our  side,  but  in  the  end  were  unwilling  to  hear  the  Emperor. 
In  very  truth,  you  have  not  to  do  with  men  at  Augsburg,  but  with  the 


'«=C.  R.,  II,  117. 

"3  One  Roman  priest,  for  breaking  the  rule  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Cross, 
■was  placed  in  prison  by  Charles    (and  then  allowed  to  escape). 

'"  Seek.,  II,  165. 

185  rpjje  Elector  himself  wrote  to  Luther,  on  June  25th,  as  follows  :  "At  last 
it  was  announced  to  us  that  his  Majesty  would  forbid  preaching  on  both  sides, 
and  appoint  preachers  who  should  preach  the  Gospel  pure  and  clear,  so  that 
no  one  would  be  in  want  of  spiritual  nourishment ;  and  his  brother,  the  King, 
should  also  not  let  Faber  preach.  .  .  .  Now  we  are  informed  that  the  ap- 
pointed preachers  usually  speak  no  more  than  the  text  of  the  Gospel  ;  what 
they  teach  in  addition  is  said  to  be  childish.  So  our  Lord  God  must  keep 
silence  at  this  Diet.  We  do  not  blame  the  Emperor,  but  rather  our  enemies 
and  those  unfavorable  to  the  Gospel. "^ — Colestiti,  I,   139. 

'*"  About  June  20th,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther :  "At  the  same  time,  in 
the  whole  court  there  is  no  one  more  mild  or  gracious  than  the  Emperor  him- 
self, since  he,  as  Henry  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  tells  me,  is  toning  down  the 
bitter  attacks  of  the  princes.  We  have  only  two  princes  who  are  concerned 
about  our  danger,  the  Archbishop  of  Maintz  and  the  Duke  of  Brunswick.  The 
Elector  of  the  Palatinate  and  the  Margrave  of  Baden  are  not  present." 


412         THE    LUTHEFAX    COXFESSIOyS. 

gates  of  Hell  itself.  .  .  .  But  God  blinds  the  wicked  spirits  in  their  rage, 
and  they  dash  themselves  against  the  wisdom  of  God  and  deceive  themselves  in 
their  prudence.      Amen.     Amen. 

The  Lord  Jesus  Who  has  sent  you  all  thither  to  be  his  confessors  and  servants, 
for  Whom  you  are  also  offering  your  necks,  be  with  you  and  give  you  with  His 
Spirit  a  sure  witness,  that  you  know  surely,  and  do  not  doubt,  that  you  are  His 
Confessors.  This  faith  will  fill  you  with  life,  and  will  comfort  you,  for  you  are 
Embassadors  of  a  great  King.     This  is  His  true  Word.     Amen. 


T^UTHER^S    LETTERS    OF    THE    19tH. 

Luther,  up  to  the  19th,  had  still  hoped  well  of  the  friendly 
Emperor.  He  had  heard  no  more  than  that  his  Majesty  had 
reached  Augsburg,  and  that  of  all  the  Romanists  he  seemed 
to  be  the  mildest  toward  the  Protestants.  Luther  up  to  now 
saw  no  human  help  except  in  the  Emperor,'"  but  he  feels  his 
lack  of  knowledge.     To-day  he  writes  to  Cordatus : — 

Jufie  igth. 
We  have  no  Jiews  from  Augsburg.     Our  friends  at  Augsburg  write  us  none. 

And  the  same  thing  to  Zwilling: — 

Jmie  igth. 

You  will,  perhaps,  get  the  news  from  Bernhardt,  for  our  friends  have  not 
answered  our  letters  through  the  whole  month. 

The  next  day,  however,  June  20th,  the  silence  was  broken. 
He  hears  from  Jonas : — 

Luther  to  Justus  Jonas. 

June  2otIi. 

Your   letters   have   come   at  last,  my  Jonas,  after   we  were   well  fretted  for 
three  whole  zveeks  with  your  silence. 

We  have  already  alluded  to  this  mystery.  What  was  there 
to  say?     The  Elector  was  pursuing  his  own  plan  as  to  tlie 


"'  On   this   clay   Luther  writes   from   Coburg  the  celebrated   letter  on   Heaven 
to  his   little  sou. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    413 

maintenance  of  the  preaching,  and  Melanchthon  his  own  plan 
as  to  the  abandonment  of  the  Confession.  Neither  were  in 
touch  with  Luther,  and  Luther  himself  had  written  in  the 
beginning  of  June  that  letters  should  not  be  sent  him  too 
freely  and  openly.  The  status  at  Augsburg  was  changing 
hourly.  Consultation  had  followed  consultation.  All  were 
weary.  The  Emperor  had  been  present  a  week — nothing  had 
been  accomplished — who  knew  what  the  morrow  would  bring 
forth  ?  The  spirit  does  not  move  to  correspondence  under 
such  circumstances."' 

And  yet  Melanchthon  had  visitors  and  correspondence  to 
attend  to  on  this  19th  of  June.  To  the  Nuremberg  delegates 
he  now  reports  the  result  of  the  meeting  he  yesterday  had 
with  Valdes,  and  informs  them  that  it  would  probably  not  be 
necessary  to  present  the  Confession.  The  Nurembergers  the 
same  day  write: — 

Jung  jgth. 

"For,  as  Philippus  Melanchthon  reports,  the  matter  will  perhaps  not  be 
carried  so  far,  but  will  probably  be  narrowed  down  to  a  few  points,  and  written 
and  treated  more  briefly.  Whatever  action  shall  be  taken,  whether  the  former 
(soil.  Confession)  be  completed  or  a  new  one  drawn  up,  shall  be  reported  by  us 
to  your  worthies.""*" 

To  his  intimate  friend,  Camerarius,  he  writes : — 

June  igth. 

I  got  hold  of  the  Spanish  Secretary,  who  promises  faithfully  and  has  already 
spoken  concerning  my  view  to  the  Emperor  and  Campeggius.'*" 

To  Myconius,  Melanchthon  disclosed : — 

June  igth. 

Ego  pertentavi  unius,  atque  alterius  ex  Hispanicis  scribis  animum  ;  quantum 
proficiam  videro. 


'ss  vjd.  June  30th,  for  the  further  discussion  of  this  subject. 
"»  C.  R.,  II.   112  sq. 

""/ft.,  118  sq. :     "  Nactus  sum  Hispanum  secretarium,  qui  benigne  pollicetur, 
et  jam  de  mea  sententia  cum  Cesare  et  Campegio  collocutus  est." 

30 


414        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 
Sunday,  June  19th. 

PRELIMINARY   TO    THE   DIET. 

Early  on  the  morning  of  Sunday,  the  19th,  about  seven 
o'clock,  the  princes  appeared  at  the  palace  and  escorted  the 
Emperor'^'  to  the  Cathedral,  where  he  received  the  sacrament. 
After  tlie  close  of  the  service,  the  princes  went  to  the  E-ath- 
haus  where  Frederick  of  the  Palatinate  read  off  the  Propo- 
sitions of  the  Diet,  which  in  the  afternoon  were  dictated  to 
the  secretaries  of  the  estates."" 

The  Emperor  called  all  the  princes  to  him  in  the  afternoon, 
and,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Papal  Legate,  ordered  the  Elec- 
tor, as  marshal  of  the  Empire,  to  carry  the  sword'^  before  him. 
in  all  the  ceremonies  of  the  Diet,  and  particularly  at  the  mass 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  would  open  the  session  on  the  mor- 
row. The  Elector  received  this  message  and  called  together 
his  theologians.  He  could  scarcely  refuse,  neither  could  he 
obey,  without  dishonoring  the  Gospel.  But  the  theologians 
said :  "This  is  a  ceremony  of  the  Empire,  and  you  are  sum- 
moned as  court  marshal.  The  Word  of  God  itself,  in  the 
case  of  iSTaaman,  affords  you  precedent."  '** 

Monday,  June  20  th. 

Its 

THE  OPENING  OF  THE  DIET. 

The  Emperor  and  his  brother,  together  with  the  electors 
and  princes,  entered  the  cathedral  and  took  their  seats  on  the 
right  side   of  the  choir.      Opposite  them   were   placed   the 


'■"  "  The  Emperor  is  said  to  have  prayed  very  faithfully  these  days  "  [i.  e., 
before  he  took  Communion  on  June  19th]. — Cyprian,  64. 

"2  n. 

"^  Non  gratiae  missae,  sed  ciflcii,  quod  gladium  Csesari  praeferre  ad  ipsum 
pertiuet. — Comment,  rerum  August.  Vindelicar,  II,  cap.   65. 

'^  Seek.,  II,   167. 

"*  Schirrmacher,  Brief e  und  Aden;  Forstemann,  Urkundeiibuch  zxi  dcr 
Oeschichte  des  Reichstac/s  zn  Augsburg,  2  vols.  (Halle,  1833-1835)  ;  and 
Archiv  fiir  die  Geschichte  der  kivchl.  Refonnation  (Halle,  1831)  ;  Moritz 
Facius,  Geschichte  des  Reichstags  zu  Augsburg    (Leipzig,   1830). 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.    415 

Legate,  the  archbishops  and  the  bishops.  The  ambassadors 
were  in  the  middle.  The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  and  other 
Protestants,  to  abstain  from  the  adoration  of  the  Host,  were 
in  a  gallery  that  overlooked  the  choir.""  The  Elector  bore  the 
sword  before  the  Emperor,  bnt  remained  standing  at  the 
moment  of  adoration. 

The  Archbishop  of  Salerno  preached  the  sermon,  first 
iigainst  the  Turks,  and  then  against  the  Germans,  whom  he 
described  as  in  some  respects  worse  than  the  Turks.  ''Thej 
tear  the  seamless  coat  of  Christ :  they  abolish  the  sacred  doc- 
trines and  substitute  for  them  buffoonery."  ^"  Turning  to- 
ward the  EmjDeror  and  his  brotlier  the  preacher  said, 
"Sharpen  your  swords  against  these  perverse  disturbers,  and 
bring  them  back  into  the  fold  of  the  church."'  Germany  will 
have  no  peace  so  long  as  this  heresy  isi  not  eradicated  by  the 
sword.  St.  Peter,  open  the  stony  hearts  of  these  people  with 
your  keys.  St.  Paul,  if  they  become  too  rebellions,  cut  their 
liardness  of  heart  into  pieces  with  your  sword."  The  sermon 
did  not  please  the  Germans.  Even  the  Archbishop  of  Maintz 
was  offended.  But  the  words  of  the  preacher  did  not  reach 
the  body  of  the  building,  and  were  inaudible  to  the  people. 

The  Emperor  now  proceeded  to  the  town  hall  in  his  car- 
riage, and  sat  down  on  a  throne  covered  with  gold.  In  front 
of  him  was  Ferdinand,  on  a  bench.  Pound  about  him  were 
the  electors,  forty-two  princes,  the  delegates  from  the  cities, 
the  bishops  and  embassadors.  The  Diet  was  formally  opened 
by  a  "Speech,"  or  "Proposition,"  from  the  throne,  in  which 
the  Diet  was  informed  (through  Count  Palatine)  that  the 
business  was  in  two  parts,  first  the  armament  against  the 
Turks,  and  second  that  his  Majesty  desired  by  fair  and  gentle 
means  to  end  the  religious  differences  which  were  distracting 
Germany. 

The  Emperor  declared  that  if  the  edict  of  Worms  had  been 
observed,  the  religious  difficulties  of  the  realm  would  not 


^Seck.,  II,  119. 

"'  Pallavicini,  Hist.  Trid.  C,  I,  23. 

^C.  R.,  II.  120. 


416         TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

have  taken  on  such  large  proportions ;  but  that  he  wished 
careful  consideration  to  be  given  to  the  matter  now.  In 
form,  he  adhered  to  the  plan  laid  down  in  his  Call,  but  sub- 
stantially he  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  Romanists. 

Referring  to  the  result  of  the  edict  of  Worms,  he  asserted 
that  it  had  led  not  only  to  the  contempt  of  the  Emperor  him- 
self, but  also  of  Almighty  God,  to  a  decline  of  divinely  or- 
dained authority,  to  the  great  disadvantage  of  the  estates 
themselves,  and  which  would  result  in  conflagration,  war,  and 
death,  as  has  shown  itself  in  various  ways  in  the  German 
nation,  especially  in  the  Peasants'  War,  and  in  the  disorders 
of  the  Anabaptists. 

Therefore  the  Emperor,  who  perceived  these  conditions  with 
great  sorrow,  undertook,  in  his  native  goodness  and  grace, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  Call,  to  guide  all  things  into  a 
better  way.  Accordingly  his  Majesty  is  willing  to  take  up 
this  matter  and  to  deliberate  and  conclude  how  both  the  inva- 
sion of  the  Turk  and  also  the  errors  and  divisions  in  the  Holy 
Faith  may  best  be  handled.  In  a  very  friendly  and  gracious 
way  he  now  earnestly  desires  that  the  electors,  princes,  and 
the  common  estates,  in  so  far  as  each  one  of  them  is  con- 
cerned, may  now  present  in  writing  in  the  Latin  and  in  the 
German  language  their  opinion  and  view  concerning  the 
error,  division,  and  abuses,  in  whatsoever  the  clergy  may 
have  grievances  against  the  civil  power  or  the  civil  power 
against  the  clergy  or  among  themselves,  in  order  that  the 
conditons  may  be  harmonized  and  compared  and  brought  into 
Christian  unity. 

After  the  Speech,  the  Diet  was  free  for  the  day.  The 
Elector  called  a  meeting  of  the  Protestant  party — its  mem- 
bers were  excited  by  the  speech — and  told  them  not  to  turn 
aside,  and  exhorted  them  to  be  intrepid  in  maintaining  the 
cause  of  God.'**  They  then  made  the  necessary  agreement."" 
Thus  ended  the  first  day  of  the  Diet,  on  Monday  night. 


"•Secfc.,  II,  108. 

^'"'  "  Nahmen  die  niithige  Abrcih." — Cyprian,  p.  65. 


PROVIDENCE  AND  THE  AUGUST  AN  A.  417 
Tuesday,  June  21st. 

THE  ELECTOR  PREPARES   FOR   THE  GREAT   EVENT.       MELANCH- 
THON^S  DISCLOSURE  REJECTED. 

The  Elector  arose  early  this  morning  and  sought  spiritual 
strength  in  the  Word  and  in  fervent  prayer  to  God. "'  He 
then  took  up  the  imperial  "Proposition"  of  the  day  before 
for  consideration,  with  his  son,  Briick  and  Melanchthon,  and 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Diet  ought  to  attack  the 
religious  issue  first  of  all. 

"In  the  afternoon  he  called  his  brethren  in  the  faith — the 
Protestant  allies — and  consulted  with  them  as  to  his  idea 
that  it  was  necessary  to  give  the  matter  of  religion  precedence 
in  the  Diet.  He  asked  them  to  bring  him  their  views  "  ^"^  the 
next  day. 

Melanchthon  must  have  felt  uneasy  at  this  interview.  He 
had  laid  his  underground  line  to  the  heart  of  the  enemies' 
country — yea,  to  Rome  itself — for  tlie  purpose  of  obviating 
the  very  crisis  which  the  Elector  and  his  counsellors  had  now 
decided  to  bring  about,  viz. :  an  ojien  Confession  and  an 
immediate  public  discussion  in  the  Diet.  He  had  thrown  the 
Confession  aside,  and  was  even  not  prepared  to  furnish  a 
copy  of  it.  In  consequence  of  his  secret  negotiations,  the 
imperial  Secretary,  the  Emperor,  and  the  Papal  Legate 
were  now  expecting  that  any  public  disturbance  would  be 
hushed  up,  and  that  a  settlement  would  be  made  in  private. 
In  truth  Melanchthon  was  at  this  moment  under  imperial 
instructions  to  write  out  a  draft  containing  the  maximum  of 
Lutheran  differences  for  the  Elector  to  sign,  and  after  secur- 
ing the  signature  was  to  hand  it,  with  the  approval  and  con- 
sent of  the  princes,  to  Valdes,  the  Spanish  secretary. 

To  carry  through  such  a  plan,  it  was  imperative,  without 
an  hour's  delay,  to  convince  the  Elector  and  the  chancellor 
that  the  discussion  on  the  subject  of  religion,  and  the  delivery 


="'  Seek.,  II,  169. 
^^  Cyprian,  p.  65. 


418        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

of  a  Protestant  Confession  at  Augsburg  should  be  given  up, 
and  that  a  settlement  ought  to  be  made  in  private,  as  the 
Emperor  requested.  The  moment  had  come  when  Melaneh- 
thon  must  speak. 

How  Melanehthon  broached  the  subject  does  not  appear. 
But  after  hearing  the  project,  Briick  waved  it  aside,  if  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  the  abandonment  of  a  public  pro- 
cedure to  which  they  had  gained  undisputed  right,  for  a 
private  and  unguaranteed  procedure,  might  imperil  their 
whole  standing  before  the  Diet,  and  consequently  their  cause, 
their  churches,  and  their  faith.  The  strength  of  their  po- 
sition lay  in  strict  obedience  to  the  Call.""*  This  summary 
rejection  of  Melanchthon's  plan  put  an  immediate  end  to  the 
private  imperial  negotiation. 

But  there  was  another  important  matter  to  consider  this 
morning.  It  was  what  the  Protestants  should  do  in  view  of 
the  evidently  unfavorable  tone  of  the  imperial  "Proposition" 
of  yesterday.  The  Evangelicals  decided  that  it  was  necessary 
for  them  to  deny  the  right  of  the  Diet  to  come  to  a  final  de- 
cision on  a  matter  of  religion ;  and  to  insist  that  the  possibil- 
ity of  appeal  to  a  General  Council  of  the  Church  must  be 
left  clear  and  open. 

In  addition  to  these  two  points,  it  was,  further,  decided  to 
complete  a  common  Confession  for  the  whole  Lutheran  party, 
and  to  draw  the  counsellors  and  theologians  of  the  separate 
Lutheran  estates  into  consultation.  And  since  the  Confes- 
sion was  to  be  that  of  the  whole  Church,  it  was  now  necessary 
to  lay  aside  Melanchthon's  long  Introduction,  which  he  had 
elaborated  so  rhetorically,  and  to  substitute  a  German  preface 
which  embodied  the  relations  of  all  the  estates  toward  the 
Emperor,  written  by  Chancellor  Briick,  and  translated  into 
German  by  Jonas.^°* 


^"^  The  Nuremberg  Rath  therefore  declared  that  it  was  necessary  to  insist  on 
the  delivery  of  the  Confession  in  the  German  and  Latin  languages. — C.  R.,  II, 
123  sq.  ;  Vogt,  18,  cited  by  Kolde. 

'"^  Forst.,  I,  460.  No  copies  were  made  of  this  translation.  Kolde  estimates 
Briick's  Preface  (which  Weber  derides)  thus :  It  was  composed  with  much 
skill,  and   recapitulated  the  transactions  of  the   previous  decade. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.     419 

The  meeting  of  the  Protestants  on  this  21st  of  June, 
despite  the  thrilling  scenes  through  which  they  had  already 
passed,  must  have  been  most  memorable.  "With  the  plan  for 
the  future  now  firmly  mapped  out,  and  with  the  revelation  of 
what  Melanchthon  had  been  trying  to  do  during  the  past 
week,  it  left  a  deep  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  estates 
newly  admitted  to  the  consultation.  The  Xuremberg  dele- 
gates immediately  wrote  home  and  sent  a  long  report  of  the 
negotiations  that  had  taken  place  between  Melanchthon  and 
Valdes.  Kress  had  first  reported  that  Melanchthon  would 
*'to-day  converse"  with  Briick.  But  later,  in  the  postscript 
to  this  letter,  he  stated  that  he  had  just  been  called  into  the 
hotel  of  the  Elector,  where  in  the  presence  of  the  counsellors 
of  Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Ilesse,  and  Lilneberg,  he  was  in- 
formed that  they  were  on  the  point  of  '^revising,  Avriting,  and 
completing  the  Articles."  Thus  the  laymen  once  more  set  the 
confessional  situation  in  the  centre  as  the  real  thing,  and 
went  to  work  immediately  to  put  the  Elector's  document  into 
such  shape  that  it  would  become  a  common  and  permanent 
Confession  of  their  Faith. 

At  this  meeting,  then,  the  Emperor's  original  plan  of  set- 
tling the  religious  difficulty  in  the  Diet  was  dropped ;  Me- 
lanchthon's  plan  of  placing  it  into  the  hands  of  the  clement 
Emperor  was  providentially  frustrated ;  and  the  Landgrave's 
plan  of  appealing  to  a  General  Council,  together  with  the 
completion  of  a  common  Confession  which  set  forth  the 
Lutheran  teaching,  and  which  should  contain  tlie  appeal,  was 
adopted.  To  harmonize  their  position  with  that  of  the  Diet 
at  Spires,  on  which  they  had  fallen  back,  the  attacks  that 
Melanchthon  had  made  in  the  Confession  upon  the  "Sacra-< 
mentarians,"  and  the  expressions  concerning  the  "Jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Bishops,"  were  also  dropped ;  but  the  Landgrave 
was  unsuccessful  in  gaining  a  reconsideration  of  the  Tenth 
Article  on  the  "Mass." 


420        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 
Wednesdai/,  June  22nd. 

THE  CONFESSION  CALLED  FOR  UNEXPECTEDLY. 

The  private  negotiations,  which  the  Emperor  favored  so 
highly,  had  fallen  through.  All  that  Melanchthon  was  al- 
lowed to  do  was  to  show  Valdes  the  Confession  that  had  been 
drawn  up  for  public  presentation.  Since  the  Protestants 
would  not  take  his  way,  the  Emperor  would  surprise  them 
by  calling  on  them  very  suddenly  for  their  own  way.  This 
was  what  happened. 

To-day  the  Emperor  ordered  that  the  Elector  and  his 
party  should  have  their  Confession  ready  by  day  after  to- 
morrow, Friday.  In  accordance  with  the  plan  of  his  orig- 
inal Call,  the  Roman  party  also  were  invited  to  present  a 
Confession,  but  the  Romanists  told  the  Emperor  that  it  was 
not  necessary :  they  were  satisfied  with  the  edict  of  Worms."' 

Not  since  the  11th  of  May,  when  Luther  was  asked  to  re- 
turn the  Confession  with  all  haste,  had  there  been  such  pres- 
sure put  upon  the  Protestants.  During  the  interim  between 
the  negotiations  of  Melanchthon  and  the  imperial  secretary, 
it  had  lain  neglected.  Only  yesterday  the  German  Intro- 
duction was  submitted ;  and  other  changes  were  made.  The 
whole  document,  and  especially  the  beginning  and  the  ending, 
were  lacking  in  definite  form.  Perhaps  the  archbishop  of 
Maintz^"*  could  secure  for  them  one  day  more  in  which  to 
properly  complete  it,  but  this  was  refused.^" 

So  what  was  left  of  Wednesday  and  Wednesday  night  was 
given  to  completing,  correcting,  and  transcribing  the  Con- 
fession. 


*™  Wednesday,  June  22nd.  "  The  Romanists  declared  they  had  no  Confession 
to  hand  over.  The  Evangelicals  pointed  out  that  in  the  Call  it  was  made  the 
duty  of  both  sides  to  offer  a  statement  on  the  matter  of  religion ;  but  the 
Romanists  by  no  means  and  in  no  way  would  yield  to  this." — Cyprian,  p.  65. 

'^  When  the  Elector  of  Maintz  was  asked  to  gain  one  day's  delay,  he  replied 
that  there  was  nothing  to  be  asked  for,  since  the  Emperor  was  already  disposed 
to  hear  the  papal  legate,  Campeggius,  and  the  Evangelicals  on  that  day. — 
lb.,    p.    66. 

="'  C.  R.,  II,  127. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUST  AN  A.    421 

THE    VERDICT    OF    VALDES. 

Undoubtedly  when  Melanchthon  showed  the  Confession  to 
Valdes,  V.  not  only  declared  it  too  bitter,  but  reported  to  the 
Emperor  that  the  Protestants  were  going  to  stand  for  a 
Council;  and  reported  the  whole  Protestant  position  to 
Campeggius,  who  sent  it  to  Rome,  where  it  was  discussed  by 
the  consistory  on  July  6th  as  "The  Articles  of  ]\relanchthon." 
The  verdict  of  Valdes  served  to  bring  Melanchthon  back  to 
work  on  the  document  with  redoubled  zeal,  and  up  to  the  last 
moment,  in  order  to  smooth  out  every  trace  of  unnecessary 
roughness. 

Thursday,  June  23rd. 

REVISING   AND    SIGNING   THE   DOCUMENT, 

To-day  the  last  reading  and  the  final  fixation  of  the  text 
was  undertaken.  Bright  and  early  the  Lutheran  princes, 
counsellors  and  theologians  assembled  at  the  Elector's  hotel. 

"On  Thursday,  the  23rd  of  June,  the  representatives  of  Nuremberg  and 
Reitlingen  were  requested  to  come  to  Saxony,  Hesse,  Margrave  George  and 
Liineburg;  and  there  the  specified  Instruction  concerning  the  Faith  was  read, 
heard  and  deliberated  on  before  all  the  Princes,  their  counsellors  and  theologians, 
whose  theologians  were  twelve,  without  the  other  learned  men  and  doctors. 
The  same  was  to  be  ordered  to  be  read  to-morrow  afternoon  to  his  imperial 
Majesty  before  the  Diet. "2"* 

The  whole  Confession,  with  the  new  German  Preface  was 
read  in  German  and  revised.  The  Epilogue  probably  was 
added  at  this  final  revision.  According  to  a  later  communi- 
cation of  Melanchthon  the  single  articles  were  discussed  in 
order.  "Nihil  mihi  sumpsi.  Praesentibus  Principibus  et 
aliis  gubernatoribus  et  concionatoribus  disputatum  est  ordine 
de  singulis  sententiis."  ^°'' 

As  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Camerarius  on  June  26th,  he 


2««  (Ex  diario  t.  31b)    Cyprian,  p.    179. 

-"'Mel.   in  the  Vorrede  zur  ^amnilunr/  s.   Reden, 


422        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

was  changing  and  improving  much  on  the  Confession  to  the 
last,  and  was  putting  things  more  mildly  because  he  had 
learned  from  Valdes,  to  whom  he  had  shown  it,  that  it  was 
much  too  bitter.  He  says  to  Camerarius:  "I  would  also 
have  made  more  changes,  if  our  advisers  had  permitted.  So 
far  from  thinking  it  was  written  too  gently,  I  am,  on  the  con- 
trary, worried  lest  some  might  take  offense  at  our  freedom," 
Finally  the  whole  document  was  once  more  discussed  and  re- 
viewed. All  concurred  in  it  except  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse 
and  the  delegates  from  Strasburg,  who  wished  the  article  on 
the  Lord's  Supper  changed.  The  princes  would  not  concede 
this. 

The  moment  was  at  hand  when  the  document  was  to  be 
signed.  Tlie  Elector  was  about  to  put  his  name  down,  when 
Melanchthon  interposed,  and  said  that  the  teachers  and 
theologians,  as  representatives  of  the  Church,  should  sign  the 
document;  but  the  Elector  persisted  that  his  faith  was  more 
precious  to  him  than  his  earthly  authority.  ''I  will  confess 
my  Christ,"  said  he.  Thus  John  the  Steadfast  attached  his 
name  to  the  Confession.^"     Sign  he  would,  and  did,^' 

John  Frederick  signed  next,  but  only  the  Latin  text.  He 
was  followed  by  the  Margrave  George,  Duke  Ernst,  Franz 
of  Liineburg  (the  Latin  text  only).  The  pen  was  handed  to 
the  Landgrave,  who,  after  some  objection,  signed,  but  said 
to  himself  at  the  same  time  tliat  he  was  not  satisfied  with  the 
statement  of  the  article  on  the  sacrament.^* 

The  Prince  of  Anhalt.  and  the  cities  of  Xuremberg  and 
Reutlingen  attached  their  signatures.  "  The  representatives 
of  Hailspron,  Kemten,  Winszheim,  and  Weiszenburg  were 
willing  also  to  confess  along  side  of  Nuremberg  and  the 
representative  of  Reitlingen,  in  the  delivered  Instruction  of 


""  Charles,  later,  refused  to  invest  John  with  his  Electoral  dignities  in  the 
usual  feudal  fashion  ;  and  his  entourage  whispered  that  if  the  Elector  was  not 
amenable  to  the  Emperor's  arguments,  he  might  find  the  electorate  taken 
from  him  and  bestowed  on  the  kindred  House  of  Ducal  Saxony,  which  in  the 
person  of  Duke  George  so  stoutly  supported  the  old  religion.  The  threat  Is 
recorded  in  Archiv  fiir  Schweizerische  Geschichte  und  Landeskunde,  I,   278. 

="'  Camer.,  p.  120. 

"'  C.  R.,  II,   155. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    423 

Faith  of  the  Elector  and  the  other  Princes,  and  they  were 
also  ready  to  sign  it;  but  after  taking  counsel  among  them- 
selves, thev  asked  permission  for  several  days'  delay."  "^ 

This  small  but  determined  party  of  Protestant  Confessors, 
who  knew  that  they  might  be  laying  down  their  property, 
their  lands  and  their  lives  for  their  faith ;  and  who  would 
be  obliged  to  appear  as  an  insignificant  minority  before  the 
combination  of  the  Roman  Church  and  the  greatest  civil 
power  in  Europe,  but  who  desired  nothing  so  much  as  an 
open  vindication  of  the  truth,  their  faith,  and  their  honorable 
name,  now  determined  that  they  would  petition  as  a  conces- 
sion from  the  Emperor,  that  the  Confession  should  be  recited 
forth  in  public/'* 

Thus  these  Lutheran  laymen,  standing  squarely  for  their 
liberties  and  their  faith,  pushed  aside  the  mihler  plan,  and 
left  the  Melanchthonian  advisers  in  the  background,  while 
they  went  before  the  Diet  and  stood  their  ground  in  the  sense 
and  spirit  of  Luther,  and  not  in  the  sense  and  the  timidity  of 
]\relanchthon.  When  we  are  told  that  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion is  not  Luther's  Confession,  and  that  he  was  rather  its 
unfriendly  critic  than  its  creator;  let  us  at  that  moment  re- 
member that  ^felanclithon  had  abandoned  it,  that  he  never 
signed  it — was  not  permitted  to  become  one  of  the  signatories 
— that,  though  miles  nearer  than  Luther,  he  was  not  present 
with  that  little  party  of  heroes  on  the  25th  of  June  in  the 
bishop's  palace  when  it  was  given  to  the  world,  and  is  not 
therefore  numbered  among  its  primal  Confessors. 

Friday,  June  SJfth. 

PREPARED,  BrT  PUT  OFF  FOR  OXE  DAY  MORE. 

The  Lutherans  came  to  the  Diet  to-day  ready  with  their 
complete  "Statement  of  Grievances  and  Opinions"  relating 
to  the  Faith,  but  they  were  not  permitted  to  read  it,  the 

"3  (Ex    (liario    t.    ?,lb)    Cyprian,    p.    180. 
="*  Seek.,  II,  169. 


434        THE   LV  THEE  AN   CONFESSIONS. 

Komanists  seeming  to  have  taken  measures  to  try  to  crowd 
it  out.  First  of  all,  the  sitting  of  the  Diet  did  not  begin  nntil 
three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  The  Papal  Legate  was  then 
announced,  and  the  Emperor  went  to  the  top  of  the  staircase 
to  meet  him.  Taking  his  seat  in  front  of  the  Emperor,  Cam- 
peggius  arose  to  speak.  ''Xever  before,"  said  he,  "has  the  ship 
of  St.  Peter  been  so  violently  tossed  in  the  waves."  ''*  Then 
addressing  the  Emperor,  he  implored  his  ]\rajesty  to  get  rid 
of  the  Protestant  errors,  to  deliver  Germany,  and  to  save 
Christendom.  The  Archbishop  of  Maintz  replied  to  him, 
and  the  Legate  left  the  Diet. 

jSTow  the  Evangelical  princes  arose  to  plead  their  cause,  but 
delegates  from  other  countries  who  were  present  were  given 
a  hearing.  At  last  the  princes  arose  again,*'*  and  Chancellor 
Briick  declared  that  his  party  was  accused  of  supporting 
heresy,  their  good  name  was  compromised,  and  their  souls 
were  in  danger,  and  he  therefore  begged  his  Majesty  to  hear 
what  the  doctrines  are  which  they  profess.  The  Emperor 
declared  that  the  hour  was  too  late,""  and  they  should  be 
satisfied  to  have  their  Confession  delivered  in  writing.  They 
declared  that  their  souls  and  their  honor  were  at  stake.*'* 
They  were  accused  publicly  and  they  ought  to  answer  pub- 
licly. Charles  seemed  ready  to  yield,  but  Ferdinand^"  pre- 
vented him. 

Then,  for  the  third  time,  the  Elector  and  his  party  ve- 
hemently and  persistently  demanded  that  they  should  be 
allowed  to  read  their  Confession  for  the  love  of  God,  and 
declared  that  no  person  was  insulted  in  it.  The  Emperor 
was  surrounded  with  a  great  number  of  guardians  and  eccle- 
siastics;"" but  he  finally  granted  their  request,  yet  said  that 


-">  Seek.,  II,  169. 

^*  "  Although  evening  was  already  breaking   in,   they  persistently  petitioned 
that  their  Confession   should  be  heard." — Cyprian,  p.    67. 

""  "After    counsel    had    been    taken    with    the    King    and    the    other    Catholia 
estates." — Ih. 

«*  G.  R.,  II,  128. 

'^"Seck.,    II,    169. 

'■'■^  lb. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTAN  A.     425 

as  it  Avas  now  too  late,  thej  should  send  him  the  written 
document,  and  that  the  next  day  at  two  o'clock  the  Diet 
would  hear  it  privately  in  his  own  palace."' 

The  princes  refused  to  give  up  the  Confession  on  the 
ground  that  the  work  had  been  done  in  great  haste,  and  that, 
before  formally  giving  over  the  document,  it  needed  revision, 
which  they  would  undertake  during  the  night.*"  The  Em- 
peror yielded,  and  the  Protestants  left  the  Diet  with  a  thank- 
ful heart. 


Saturday,  June  2otli. 

PRESENTATION  AND  BEADING  OF  THE  CONFESSION. 

The  presentation  of  the  Confession  took  place  in  a  small 
chapel,  but  a  great  crowd  thronged  the  court  without."^  Only 
those  officially  concerned  and  their  attendants  were  ad- 
mitted."^* 

It  was  in  the  afternoon.  There  sat  his  imperial  Majesty 
upon  the  throne,  flanked  on  either  side  by  the  electors,  princes 
and  states  of  the  empire.  Some  of  the  dignitaries  of  the 
Church  were  there.    The  scene  was  impressive. 

The  Emperor  requested  the  Confession  to  be  read  in 
Latin.^^"  "We  are  Germans,"  said  the  Elector  of  Saxony, 
"and  on  German  soil ;  I  hope  therefore  your  Majesty  will 
allow  us  to  speak  in  German".  His  Majesty  acquiesced  in 
his  Grace's  request.     And  then  Dr.  Beyer,  one  of  the  Elec- 


~iC.    R.,    II,    124. 

=-2  "  But  all  this  was  refused,  and  the  immediate  delivery  was  insisted  on  ; 
but  at  last,  after  much  deliberating,  the  Emperor  agreed  to  hear  the  Con- 
fession the  following  afternoon. — Cyprian,  p.  67. 

*»  C.  R.,  II,  157. 

224  "  On  Saturday,  June  25th,  the  Emperor,  the  King,  and  all  the  estates, 
betook  themselves,  in  the  afternoon  about  four  o'clock,  to  the  corbeled  hall  in 
the  court  garden  of  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg,  where  his  Majesty  was  accustomed 
to  hold  the  service.  .  .  .  No  one  but  the  estates  and  counsellors  were  per- 
mitted to  remain.  The  Evangelical  princes  arose,  to  make  their  Confession 
standing,  but  were  prevailed  on  by  the  Emperor  to  sit  down.  The  two  Electoral 
Saxon  Chancellors  then  stepped  into  the  middle  of  the  room." — Cyprian,  p.  68. 

^^Seck.,  II,  170. 


426         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

tor's  chancellors,  read  the  Confession  so  loudly  and  distinctly 
that  the  multitude  gathered  aronnd  the  outside  of  the  build- 
ing heard  every  word.""  The  eyes  of  many  a  Roman  Catholic 
were  opened.  The  bishop  of  the  city  said,  "What  has  here 
been  read  is  the  pure  and  unadulterated  truth;  we  cannot 
gainsay  it."  *^'  The  Legate  had  absented  himself,  lest  his 
presence  be  interpreted  as  authorizing  the  reading  of  the 
Confession  I*'**  and  many  others  of  the  Roman  clergy  did  not 
attend  for  fear  their  Church  would  be  sharply  criticised. 

Charles  V.  accepted  of  Chancellor  Briick  the  two  copies, 
handing  the  German  one  to  the  Elector  of  Maintz  and 
keeping  the  Latin  for  himself."^  The  reading  had  consumed 
about  two  hours.  The  Lutherans  rejoiced  in  having  been 
able  to  make  a  good  confession  before  many  witnesses.  The 
Emperor's  reply  was  that  he  would  further  consider  the 
matter."" 

The  Emperor  extended  his  hand  to  the  Elector  and  said 
tenderly,  "  Uncle,  I  would  not  have  expected  this  from  you ;" 
and  silently  the  Elector  bowed  and,  with  his  eyes  full  of  tears, 
left  the  Diet  with  the  Duke  of  Liineburg  and  the  Prince  of 
Anhalt.  The  Emperor  departed  dissatisfied  and  resolved  to 
bring  the  Protestants  to  obedience  both  by  law  and  force  of 
arms. 

Before  parting  the  Emperor  descended  his  throne,  ap- 
proached the  Protestant  princes,  and  earnestly  requested  them 
in  a  low  tone  not  to  publish  the  Confession.'" 


^*  Chytraeus,  Hist.  Augs.  Conf.,  p.  56. 

=^'  C.  R.,  II,   154. 

-=»Sarpi,   Hist.    Council   Trent,    I,   101. 

--°  Neither  of  them  have  as  yet  ever  come  to  light  again. 

"^''  "  After  the  reading  of  the  Confe.=;sion,  vifhich  continued  for  almost  two 
hours,  the  Emperor,  through  Fredericlv  Count  Palatine,  announced  to  the 
Evangelicals,  in  the  full  Diet,  that  he  would  take  this  important  matter  into 
consideration.  Hereupon  the  Evangelicals  thanked  most  obediently  for  the 
hearing,  the  chancellor  Briick  wi.shed  to  hand  over  the  German  and  Latin 
copies  of  the  Confession  to  the  Imperial  Secretary,  Alexander  Schweisz,  that 
he  might  place  it  into  the  hands  of  the  Elector  of  Maintz,  as  the  Chancellor 
of  the  realm :  but  the  Emperor  reached  out  for  them  himself,  and  took  both 
copies,  and  gave  the  German  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  realm,  but  kept  the 
Latin  copy  for  himself." — Spalatin,  Annal.  Luth.,  p.  139 ;  MUller,  p.  587 ; 
Cyprian,  p.  71. 

=»'  C.  R.,  II,  143. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.    437 

THE    TOWERING    SUMMIT. 

The  good  fight  was  made,  the  faith  was  kept.  The  Pro- 
testants had  completed  their  Evangelical  Confession  before 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  They  had  stood  for  truth  against 
the  world.  The  united  power  of  this  world's  Church  and 
State  had  failed  to  move  them.  Their  Confession  was  the 
immutable  Rock.  It  was  a  finality  that  might  be  added  to, 
but  not  taken  from.  It  was  a  broad  and  sure  foundation  to 
build  upon.  It  was  not  the  building,  but  the  Rock ;  it  was 
not  the  full-blown  tree  but  the  germ.  It  was  Luther anism 
brought  to  a  minimum  upon  which,  when  Providence  pro- 
vided a  season  for  inner  development,  should  rise  Lutheran- 
ism  brought  to  a  maximum.  Anything  less  was  not  the 
Lutheran  Faith ;  anything  more  in  the  line  of  legitimate  de- 
velopment, whether  it  were  an  Apology  or  a  Formula,  would 
be  the  Lutheran  Faith  more  highly  unfolded. 

The  real  power  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  lay  not  in  its 
writing,  whether  the  pen  employed  were  that  of  counsellor  or 
theologian,  but  in  its  content.  Its  power  was  not  the  power 
of  its  subjects  or  phrases,  but  the  power  of  its  truth.  Its 
content  was  made  effective  and  final  by  its  delivery.  It  thus 
became  testimony,  which  could  not  be  afterward  modified  or 
changed  even  by  the  authors,  except  upon  a  recantation  from 
conviction  of  former  mistake,  or  from  treachery  to  the  truth 
brought  about  by  the  pressure  of  practical  considerations. 
He  who  allows  practical  considerations  to  modify  the  testi- 
mony of  his  conscience  is  not  a  confessor  of  the  truth. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  the  truth.  It  was  for- 
mally and  solemnly  subscribed.  It  was  delivered,  by  that 
heroic  electoral  group,  at  the  peril  of  position,  popularity 
and  life,  because  it  was  the  truth.  Any  subsequent  yielding 
in  the  men  to  the  terrors  of  Roman  pressure  could  not  alter 
the  testimony  to  the  truth.  Nothing  done  later  ever  changed 
it;  and  even  if  the  mediating  efforts  of  Melanchthon  and  his 
committee,  in  subsequent  negotiations,  should  have  modified 
or  overthrown  it,  its  testimony  would  have  tawered  trium- 


428        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

phantly  above  the  succeeding  waves  of  variation  stirred  up 
by  its  unstable  confessors;  and  it  would  have  remained  an 
oecumenical  monument  of  tlie  Gospel  Faith  of  the  great 
Reformation,  buried  or  washed,  defaced,  scarred,  spurned, 
betrayed ;  but  not  injured  nor  torn  from  its  Scripture 
pedestal,  by  those  who,  like  Peter  of  old,  had  been  so  moved 
by  their  surroundings  as  to  deny  their  Faith  and  their  Lord. 


IGNORING   THE    IDEAL   IN    HISTORY. 

As  is  the  case  with  every  other  noble  work  of  God  and 
every  other  noble  product  of  time,  it  is  possible  to  write  down 
tlie  Augsburg  Confession  to  the  level  of  a  mere  historical 
document,  transient  and  temporary,  and  filled  with  the  im- 
perfections, the  lower  motives,  and  the  ambiguities  of  its 
occasion.  But  this  attempt,  like  that  of  all  similar  effort  to 
weaken  and  disfigure  the  great  and  authoritative  monuments 
and  abiding  instruments  of  the  race,  such  instruments  as  the 
Magna  Charta,  the  American  Declaration  of  Independence, 
by  overlooking  the  permanency  and  overestimating  the  occa- 
sional character  of  their  causes,  is  a  historical  perversion. 

The  attempt  to  drag  down  and  cheapen  the  great  Confes- 
sional standards  of  our  faith,  by  pointing  out  and  emphasiz- 
ing the  human  passions  and  motives  that  may  have  animated 
the  men  who  were  active  in  their  formation,  by  elaborating 
and  laying  stress  on  the  incidental  occasions,  which,  in  the 
hand  of  Providence,  are  often  slight  and  minor  or  even  un- 
worthy, instead  of  upon  the  real  underlying  cause ;  and  by 
surrounding  the  real  standard  of  Truth  attained  and  con- 
fessed, with  the  great  multitude  of  inferior,  unfinished  and 
unsuccessful  propositions,  and  the  counterfeits,  which  nearly 
always  swarm  round  about  a  genuine  and  great  work  of  truth, 
is  not  a  worthy  one,  and  is  not  writing  history  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  term. 

This  attempt  has  been  made  against  every  standard  of  his- 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUST  AN  A.     429 

torical  greatness.  In  our  own  country,  George  Washington 
has  been  written  down  to  the  level  of  a  common,  coarse,  and 
unworthy  humanity.  Cheap  side-lights  thrown  upon  the 
framing  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  often  have  set  these  instru- 
ments in  the  glare  of  an  unworthy  and  common-place  coloring. 
The  attempt  has  been  made  to  reduce  the  divinity  of  our  Lord 
to  an  elevated  humanity  by  gathering  round  about  Him  great 
men,  e.  g.,  the  religious  founders  of  a  hoary  orient,  who  ap- 
parently stand  forth  as  His  equals.  The  same  attempt  has 
been  made  to  write  doAvn  the  history  of  Israel  and  its  religion 
to  the  level  of  the  other  ethnic  communities  around  it.  The 
Sermon  on  the  IVlount  itself,  has,  according  to  these  deprecia- 
tors,  been  proven  to  be  no  more  than  a  chrestomathy  of  the 
choicest  sayings  of  pagan  antiquity. 

In  any  sphere,  it  is  nearly  always  possible,  by  judicious 
selection,  to  raise  up  a  multitude  of  the  second  best  and  the 
counterfeit  productions  of  a  people  or  a  religion  in  such  a 
way  as  to  disparage,  and  apparently  to  take  away  the  supre- 
macy of  the  original.  For  the  original,  despite  its  greatness, 
its  truth  and  its  purity,  cannot  escape,  so  long  as  it  is  in  this 
world,  showing  some  contact  with  the  sin  and  weakness  of 
human  nature. 

But  the  great  question  in  deciding  on  the  real  merits  of  an 
acknowledged  standard  is  not  how  far  it  can  be  weakened 
down,  or  how  near  it  comes  in  certain  points  to  its  inferiors. 
To  attempt  to  show  this  is  not  in  accord  with  a  true  historical 
method,  but  is  essentially  the  method  of  skepticism,  used  for 
purposes  of  undermining  faith  in  that  which  is  really  good. 
The  question  is  not  whether  the  foundation  is  covered  with 
the  shifting  sands  of  time,  or  is  strewn  with  the  defective 
spawls  and  rejected  boulders  of  the  workshop,  but  the  question 
is  whether,  beneath  all  these,  the  real  solid  rock  is  still  stand- 
ing. The  effort  to  level  and  destroy  men's  faith  in  the  Word 
of  God,  in  miracle,  in  the  Person  of  Christ,  in  the  Lord's 

Supper,  in  the  great  and  wholesome  political,  historical,  or 
31 


430        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Confessional  foundations  of  the  past^  is  at  the  very  least 
pessimistic,  and  owes  its  origin  to  something  outside  of 
genuine  Faith. 

If  the  comparative  method  is  to  be  applied  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  SjTiibols  of  the  Church,  let  it  bring  forth 
the  clear  distinction  between  the  genuine  Confession  and  the 
defective  compromises  that  were  constantly  being  put  forth 
by  wavering  confessors  within  the  Church. 

He  is  a  poor  interpreter  of  pure  art  who  would  set  up  the 
perfectly  chiseled  and  immortal  statue  amid  the  partly  hewn 
and  rejected  blocks  that  had  been  its  companions  previous  to 
its  completion;  and  would  strew  it  over  with  the  chips  and 
the  dust  which  had  fallen  from  it  in  the  sculptor's  shop,  and 
would  say  to  us:  See,  it  is  no  more  and  no  better  than  the 
varied  and  motley  stones  from  which  it  has  sprung. 


THE    TW^O    PERSONALITIES    OF    THE    REFORMATION. 

The  unpartisan  liistorian,  the  imprejudieed  Lutheran  and 
the  true  Church  will  recognize  that  there  are  virtues  and 
faults  in  both  of  the  leading  historical  characters  of  the  Refor- 
mation. They  will  seek  to  appreciate  and  appropriate  the 
virtues,  and  not  to  combine  and  propagate  the  faults  of  both. 
Luther's  sound  and  uncompromising  confessional  faith,  his 
complete  subjection  to  God's  Word,  his  deeply  spiritual  and 
peaceful  spirit,  his  reliance  on  prayer  rather  than  on  human 
propositions  and  combinations  in  time  of  crisis  and  danger; 
united  with  Melanchthon's  moderation  and  inoffensiveness 
in  public  statement,  and  his  veneration  for  the  catholic  past, 
will  develop  for  us  the  Lutheran  Cluirch  at  its  best.  On  the 
other  hand,  to  combine  Melanchthon's  spirit  of  compromise  in 
faith,  his  evasiveness  and  use  of  ambiguous  forms  in  confes- 
sion, his  desire  to  be  with  the  stronger  party  and  his  wish  for 
external  union,  with  the  violence,  heated  zeal  and  spirit  of 
personal  attack  of  Luther  is  to  give  us  a  church  with  all  the 
faults  and  without  the  virtues  of  both  Eeformers, 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE    AUGUSTAN  A.    431 

The  Lutheran  Church  has  suffered  much  by  making  of  her 
Confessional  question  a  case  of  credit  in  authorship,  rather 
than  a  case  of  Confession  of  truth.  Individuals  do  not  figure 
here.  In  the  last  analysis,  temperaments,  accidents  of  his- 
tory, and  elements  underlying  a  human  situation,  turn  out  to 
be  but  instruments  of  Providence  for  the  establishment  of 
God's  immutable  purpose.  In  the  establishment  of  the 
Lutheran  Confession,  let  each  man  have  his  credit,  but  let 
it  not  be  forgotten  that  Providence  overruled  the  weakness  of 
every  man,  and  overcame  the  human  probabilities  of  every 
situation,  and  that  nowhere  in  history  does  the  glory  belong 
more  clearly  to  God  alone. 

Luther  was  not  a  narrow-minded  man.  He  prized  the 
powers  of  Melanchthon  above  his  own.  It  was  he  who  said: 
'"  All  the  Jeromes,  Hilarys,  and  Macariuses  together,  are 
not  worthy  to  unloose  the  thong  of  Philip's  sandal.  What 
have  the  whole  of  them  together  done  which  can  be  compared 
with  one  year  of  Philip's  teaching,  or  to  his  one  book  of 
Common  Places  ?  .  .  .  I  prefer  Melanchthon's  books  to 
my  own.  .  .  .  It  is  my  work  to  tear  up  the  stumps  and 
dead  roots,  to  cut  away  the  tliorns,  to  fill  up  the  marshes. 
I  am  the  rough  forester  and  pioneer.  But  Melanchthon 
moves  gently  and  calmly  along,  with  his  rich  gifts  from 
God's  own  hand,  building  and  planting,  sowing  and  water- 

JJ   232 

mg." 

He  also  said :  ''  Res  et  verha  Philippus;  verba  sine  re 
Erasmus;  res  sine  verbis  LutJierus;  nee  res  nee  verba 
Carolostadius."  Such  an  estimate,  declares  Warfield,  who 
is  not  a  confessional  Lutheran,  but  a  Presbyterian,  "  was 
more  than  kind  to  Melanchthon,  in  so  far  at  least  as  the  com- 
parison with  Luther  himself  was  concerned.  It  was  to 
Luther  in  no  small  measure  that  Melanchthon  owed  his 
capacity  for  deeds;  without  Luther  to  wield  the  weapons 
which  he  forged  in  his  intellectual  armory,  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  the  fires  in  the  forge  would  often  have  gone  out.     He 


^^  Pref.   to   Melanchthon,   Colossians. 


433         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

shares  from  their  close  comradeship  a  large  part  of  Luther's 
fame  as  the  herald  of  intellectual  and  religious  freedom,  yet, 
by  the  temperate  sj)irit  which  animated  his  words  and  acts, 
escapes  the  hostility  so  often  stirred  by  his  rash  and  rough- 
spoken  leader."  '^^ 

Plitt  puts  the  situation  more  pointedly.  He  says  that 
Luther  was  not  the  composer  of  the  Confession,  but  in  full 
justice  he  can  be  called  '  the  father  of  the  Confession,'  and 
Melanchthon  himself,  '  the  composer  of  the  phraseology,'  ^' 
"  Looking  at  it  in  this  light,  the  view  now  current,  which  has 
desired  to  speak  of  a  Melanchthonian  character  of  the  con- 
fession," says  Plitt,  ''in  order  thereby  to  depreciate  its  Luth- 
eran character,  is  thoroughly  unhistorical  and  groundless." 


THE    HAND   OF    PROVIDENCE. 

When  we  come  to  sum  up  the  creation  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  with  its  question  of  authorship,  we  can  scarcely 
fail  to  see  that  rarely  in  the  history  of  the  world  or  the 
Church  has  the  Hand  of  Providence  guided  the  principals 
in  a  great  act  of  testimony  so  evidently,  and  so  apart  from 
their  original  intention,  and  so  completely  eliminated  that 
which  was  partial  and  unfit  and  retained  that  which  was  the 
clear,  full  and  objective  truth  of  God,  as  has  been  the  case 
in  the  elaboration  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

The  Emperor  was  the  impelling  cause  of  its  origin.  He 
ordered  the  Elector  to  prepare  an  irenical  statement  of  his 
differences  in  religious  faith  and  usages,  in  WTiting,  and  in 


-^  Pres.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  29.  1. 

23*  This  is  also  the  phrase  used  by  Lindsay,  Hist,  of  the  German  Reforma- 
tion. We  do  not,  ourselves,  believe  that  this  phrase  does  Melanchthon  proper 
justice.  While  felicity  and  objectivity  of  statement  were  Melanchthon's  forte, 
aaid  his  creative  power  was  weak,  he  nevertheless  was  the  prince  of  diplomatists 
and  adjusters.  In  addition  to  the  phraseology,  to  Melanchthon  belongs  the 
credit  of  the  effective  disposition,  and  even  of  the  partial  selection  of  material  ; 
of  the  general  spirit  of  moderation  and  breadth,  the  entire  absence  of  personal 
sting,  and  the  perfect  adaptation — except  a  number  of  egregious  failures  where 
he   was    checked    by    Briick   and    the   other    counsellors — to    the    situation. 

But  to  orate  as  the  illuminated  rational  critic  Weber  does,  in  behalf  of  the 
Melanchthonian  authorship  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  betrays  a  bias  in  a 
professedly   impartial   investigator   which   is   only   surpassed    in   that   prince   of 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    433 

two  documents,  the  one  in  the  Latin  and  the  other  in  the 
German  language. 

The  Elector  was  its  executive  and  directive  source.  He 
decided  that  Luther  and  the  other  theologians  should  furnish 
the  material.  He  decided  that  he  would  stand  all  alone 
in  this  matter,  and  he  perhaps  decided  that  it  should  be  an 
Electoral  Apology,  and  not  a  common  Protestant  Confession. 
He  also  decided  for  reasons  previously  given  that  Luther 
should  remain  at  Coburg,  and  that  Melanchthon  should  ac- 
company him  to  the  scene  of  the  Confession.  He  was  op- 
posed to  admitting  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the  Bavarians,  and 
still  more  so  the  Zwinglians,  to  his  Apology. 

Luther  was  the  substantial  cause  and  author  of  the  Con- 
fession, not  merely  in  the  sense  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
was  his,  but  that  he  was  the  chief  personality  in  the  com- 
position of  both  the  Schwabach  and  the  Torgau  Articles, 
which  constitute  the  substance  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

Melanchthon  was  the  framing  and  adaptive  author.  He 
was  not  the  mere  scribe  or  secretary  of  the  Elector,  but  he 
had  the  serious  constructive  responsibility  of  taking  the  cue 
from  the  situation,  of  eliminating  polemic,  temporal  and 
subjective  elements  from  both  the  faith  and  the  situation,  and 
bringing  them  face  to  face  at  the  right  point  of  contact.  His 
higher  and  independent  work,  however,  was  a  failure  and 
had  to  be  rejected ;  and  the  Confession  ultimately  reverted  to 
the  old  foundation  of  Luther. 

John  Eck  and  the  Roman  enemies  of  Protestantism  were, 
in  the  hand  of  God,   directly  responsible   for  turning  the 


partisan  Confessional  historians.  Dr.  Johannes  Wigand,  Bishop  of  Pomesan  in 
Prussia  (Historia  de  Augustai^a  Confessione,  breviter  recitata  in  Academia 
Regiomontana)  (1574).  For  instance,  Weber  says,  "When  did  it  ever  occur 
to  anyone  to  derogate  from  La  Fontaine  or  from  Racine  or  from  Corneille, 
because  they  borrowed  their  material,  the  one  from  fables,  the  others  from 
history?  Yet  this  is  just  the  tone  which  so  many  older  and  newer  theologians 
have  struck  since  the  exaltation  of  'the  Bergian  Book  of  Concord.'  All  sorts 
of  grounds  have  been  suggested  to  detract  from  Melanchthon's  work  and  to 
turn  it  into  the  service  of  a  secretary.  Thus  Melanchthon  is  supposed  simply 
to  have  put  the  Confession  into  a  certain  form  from  the  Seventeen  Articles, 
which  the  highly  illumined  man  of  God,  Mr.  Luther,  had  composed  before- 
hand. ...  I  account  it  as  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  Bergian  Book  of 
Concord,  that  men,  since  its  day,  have  attempted  to  make  Melanchthon's  part 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession  smaller  and  smaller,  and  to  derogate  from  it." 


434        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

x\pology  as  a  mere  explanation  of  ecclesiastical  customs  and 
a  plea  for  imperial  grace  into  a  full-orbed  Confession  of  the 
Lutheran  faith.  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the  other  Protestant 
estates  contributed  their  important  share  to  the  confession  in 
changing  it  from  a  private  Electoral  document  into  a  Com- 
mon Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Churches,  against  the  Elec- 
tor's will  and  against  Melanehthon's  desire  and  judgment. 

The  Chancellor  Brlick  was  the  author  of  the  policy  of  the 
Confession,  and  its  revising  editor.  He  was  the  man  who 
insisted  on  giving  it  full  and  independent  standing  as  a  Con- 
fession of  faith,  and  who  would  not  yield  to  Melanehthon's 
desire  to  abandon  the  public  Confession  and  commit,  in  a 
private  manner,  the  future  into  the  Emperor's  hands.  Thus 
was  the  Emperor's  original  plan  as  to  the  document  which 
after  a  friendly  comparison  was  to  bring  back  Protestantism 
into  the  Roman  Church,  and  which  gained  the  sympathy  and 
approval  of  Melanchthon,  offset  by  Luther  and  by  the  sturdy 
Elector.  Thus  also  were  Luther's  personal  and  polemic  tone 
(Vid.  the  Admonition)  and  lack  of  judicial  attitude  offset  by 
the  Elector ;  while  the  Elector's  narrowness  and  isolation,  as 
well  as  Melanehthon's  unwillingness  to  openly  confess  re- 
gardless of  consequences,  were  checked  by  the  Emperor's 
passion  stirred  by  Eck  and  Wimpina;  and  by  the  firmness 
and  insistency  of  the  Protestant  Estates  thrown  together  into 
a  common  danger. 

"  He  who  in  all  this,"  says  Cyprian,'^  after  showing  that 
the  Confession  was  prepared  by  the  aid  and  participation  of 
all  the  estates,  "  does  not  recognize  any  Divine  working, 
support  and  encouragement,  must  if  he  be  acquainted  with 
the  history,  surely  be  setting  himself  against  the  testimony 
of  his  own  conscience." 

It  is  clear  as  day  that  Providence,  in  the  course  of  events, 
eliminated  the  imperfections  in  the  mind  and  plan  of  every 
one  of  the  principal  parties,  and  allowed  that  which  was 
true,  sound  and  catholic  in  their  purpose  to  abide.     We  may 

2»//ist..    57. 


PROVIDENCE   AND    THE   AUGUSTANA.    4;55 

thauk  the  Emperor,  as  the  instrument  of  God,  for  the  Con- 
fession; and  the  Lord  Himself  for  its  unyielding  inde- 
pendence. We  may  thank  the  Elector  for  the  fidelity  of  the 
Confession,  and  the  Lord  for  its  universality.  We  may 
thank  Luther  for  the  sound  Faith  of  the  Confession,  and 
the  Lord  for  its  impersonal  objectivity.  We  may  thank  Me- 
lanchthon  for  the  selection  and  adaptation  of  material,  and 
for  the  perfect  and  abiding  form  of  the  Augustana,  and  for 
its  exclusion  of  the  Reformed  teaching,  and  the  Lord  that 
Melanchthon  was  not  left  to  his  own  judgment  on  any  point 
connected  therewith.  We  may  thank  Briick  for  keeping  the 
Confession  out  of  imperial  polities ;  and  Philip  of  Hesse 
for  making  it  a  common  Lutheran  document.  And  no  matter 
how  we  approach  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  quarrels  as 
to  individualities  sink  into  insignificance  before  the  great 
Confessional  fact  itself,  and  the  Hand  that  guided  it  through 
dangers  on  evsry  side  to  a  triumphant  completion  far  above 
the  expectation  of  participating  friend  or  foe.  This  is  the 
Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes. 


CHAPTER   XX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  PKESERVED  UN- 
ALTERED. 

Melanchthon  in  Tears:  Their  Cause — Luther  in  Peace:  Its  Cause;  Ready  to 
Stand  by  the  Confession  even  to  Martyrdom — Was  Melanchthon  Open- 
hearted  to  Luther? — The  Correspondence  between  Augsburg  and  Luther 
from  June  25th  to  July  1st,  and  Luther's  Attempt  to  Counteract  Melanch- 
thon's  Lack  of  Faith — The  Diet — The  Course  of  Events  to  the  Confutation — 
The  Attempts  at  Compromise  under  Melanchthon — Their  Failure,  and  the 
Departure  of  the  Elector. 

Ill  Period.     The  Summer  at  Augsbueg.* 

THE  MYSTERY   OF   MELANCHTHOn's   TEARS. 

THE  Confession  was  delivered.  The  Protestant  canse 
bad  triumphed.  One  might  snppose  that  above  all 
others,  Philip  Melanchthon  would  have  been  exultant  in 
spirit,  and  would  have  shared  in  the  universal  rejoicing. 
But  it  was  not  so.  Strangely  enough  he  was  plunged  into  the 
deepest  woe,  and  his  eyes  were  fountains  of  tears^*" 

Anyone  who  ponders  this  phenomenon,  will  gain  an  in- 
sight into  the  character  of  Melanchthon,  which  will  go  far 
to  explain  much  that  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  for  the  next  thirty  years,  that  is  until  the  death  of 
Philip. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  here  the  situation  of  a  man  who 
is  the  unwilling  author  of  an  immortal  work,  and  who  would 
have  prevented  its  appearance  if  he  could.  Not  only  had 
he  thrown  aside  the  Confession  during  the  last  ten  days,  but 

•  For  the  three   periods,   vid.,    p.    342. 
'^^Melanchthon   to  LittheVj  June  26th. 

436 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  437 

from  the  very  start  he  had  preferred  not  to  have  an  open 
Confession  of  differences,  and  was  hoping  against  hope  for 
a  return  of  Lutheranism  into  the  bosom  of  Rome. 

Further,  we  see  here  a  man  sought  out  by  the  Romanists 
shortly  after  his  arrival  at  Augsburg,  and  he  had  all  these 
days  been  cultivating  relations  with  them,  and  from  him  they 
had  gained  the  impression  that  only  a  few  changes  were 
necessary  in  order  to  restore  harmony  and  unity.  His  repu- 
tation for  insight  as  a  prophet,  and  his  character  as  a  man 
of  influence  among  his  own  people,  were,  so  to  say,  at  stake 
before  the  other  side,  from  the  Emperor  and  the  papal  Legate 
at  the  head,  all  the  way  down.  While  his  gifted  and  balanced 
mind  was  revealed  in  the  Confession,  his  heart  was  outside 
of  it,  so  far  as  it  was  a  document  to  be  adhered  to  in  practical 
life.  Like  other  pragmatists  or  theologians  of  expediency,  he 
did  not  see  the  inconsistency  between  officially  confessing  one 
set  of  truths,  and  practically  tolerating  another.  As  he 
had  made  the  effort  of  his  life  to  prevent  its  appearance,  he 
would  not  rejoice  at  its  delivery,  on  which  occasion  he  was 
not  present,  as  he  intimates  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Camera- 
rius. 

But  above  all,  it  was  his  fear  lest  an  open  statement  of  the 
truth  bring  about  war,  for  which  he  had  a  mortal  terror,  and 
his  thought  that  the  Protestants  were  few  and  in  the  minor- 
ity, and  his  party  despised  at  court,  that  caused  him  anxiety. 

To  this,  fourthly,  must  be  added  the  fact  that  the  poor  man 
was  nervous  and  worn  to  the  last  extreme.  Every  effort  and 
every  change  of  tactics  had  burned  its  way  through  his  soul : 
for  he  was  in  theology  and  letters  the  leader  of  his  party. 
He  had  been  carrying  on  a  double  policy,  one  private  and  the 
other  public,  each  contradictory  of  the  other,  at  one  and  the 
same  time.  IsTow,  against  his  will,  the  Confession  was  made, 
and  to  him  it  looked  as  though  the  Protestants  might  fall  into 
great  straits.  He  was  fatally  possessed  of  the  idea  that  the 
two  parties  in  the  church  must  get  together. 

In  order  to  do  this,  however  reluctant,  he  was  willing  to 


438        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

pay  the  price,  to  sacrifice  some  truth.  He  knew  that  Luther 
was  not  willing,  and  this  increased  his  difficulty.  To  him  a 
united  church,  that  is  union  with  Rome,  was  of  more  account, 
under  the  pressure  of  political  emergency,  than  mere  theoreti- 
cal principle.  When  it  came  to  the  question  between  break- 
ing the  peace  or  sacrificing  the  doctrine  he  was  ready, 
in  order  to  gain  the  former,  to  bargain  for  a  compromise 
which  would  hold  on  to  as  much  of  the  latter  as  possible. 
With  him  a  platform  on  which  the  Protestants  might  stand 
was  something  to  negotiate  for,  and  was  not  purely  a  testi- 
mony of  conscience.  The  Confession  was  something  to  be 
adhered  to  abstractly,  but  which,  for  the  sake  of  unity,  could 
be  modified  in  actual  practice.  Thus  he  prefigured  that  ele- 
ment in  the  Lutheran  Church,  which,  in  order  to  preserve 
peace  and  a  visible  ecclesiastical  unity,  is  ambiguous  in  its 
Confessional  principle,  and  does  not  regard  the  Lutheran 
Confession  as  a  testimony  of  conscience. 

Since  the  peace  to  be  secured  was  a  matter  of  bargaining 
in  doctrine  and  usage,  and  the  question  was  how  great  a  price 
the  Protestants  were  willing  to  offer,  his  very  first  in- 
quiry of  Luther  was,  what  Luther  would  be  willing  to  give 
up  in  the  Confession  which  had  just  been  made,  for  the  sake 
of  peace  with  Rome.  This  inquiry  went  forth  at  the  time 
of  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  and  four  days  later,  as  soon 
as  Luther  received  it,  he  hurried  the  reply  back  to  Melanch- 
thon,  "So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  more  than  enough  has  been 
yielded  in  that  Apology.  ...  I  am  more  and  more 
confirmed  in  the  purpose  that  I  will  yield  nothing  more,  come 
what  may." 

As  to  the  furlhcr  course  of  the  Confessional  struggle  it- 
self, Melanchthon  had  reason  to  be  troubled.  This  was  a 
fifth  cause  for  despondency.  The  Romanists  would  give  an- 
swer; and  who  would  there  be  at  Augsburg  to  prepare  a 
theological  defense  but  poor  Melanchthon?  His  intuition 
proved  to  be  correct :  for  he  quickly  resumed  further  negotia- 
tions, and  on  his  weary  shoulders  fell  the  burden  of  preparing 


JUNE   ^5  th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  439 

an  Apology  to  the  Confutation ;  and  thus  when  the  cause,  as 
a  matter  of  testimony,  had  triumphed  on  June  25th,  Melanch- 
thon  was  but  entering  the  crisis  out  of  which,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  there  arose  the  crowning  work  of  his  life. 

Another  important  fact  is  this,  that  Melanchthon  was 
much  concerned  for  the  immediate  visible  future  and  for 
posterity.  He  was  one  of  those  mortals  who  seem  to  feel 
that  the  world  will  go  to  ruin  unless  things  are  decided  in 
accord  with  their  judgment.  Luther  wrote  to  Jonas  that 
he  should  try  to  dissuade  Melanchthon  from  the  thought  that 
he  was  the  regent  of  the  whole  world.  Nowhere  does  the 
distinction  between  Lutlier  and  Melanchthon  loom  up  more 
clearly  than  in  a  great  crisis.  Luther  gave  himself  with  all 
his  soul  to  communion  with  the  Lord :  ]\Ielanchthon  gave  him- 
self to  innumerable  consultations,  plans,  policies,  and  ar- 
rangements for  turning  the  tide  of  events  in  accord  with  the 
methods  of  men.  As  a  result,  Luther  was  mighty  in  the 
strength  of  God  in  every  critical  moment:  Melanchthon  was 
weak,  careworn,  unsettled,  and  unnerved,  fearful  lest  the 
plans  he  had  laid  would  miscarry,  and  the  worst  would  befall. 
Eound  about  the  soul  of  Luther  there  swayed  the  atmosphere 
of  Heavenly  peace. 

Luther's  satisfaction. 

Luther  cared  little  for  the  political  adjustment  and  de- 
fense of  his  cause.  Consequently  he  had  taken  so  slight  an  in- 
terest in  the  Electoral  Apology,  and  in  the  Diet  itself.  With 
liini  faith  was  a  question  of  conscience,  and  he  did  not  want 
it  to  be  hampered  or  adjusted  by  imperial  politics.  He  was 
overjoyed  therefore  when  he  heard  the  tidings  of  a  public  and 
uncompromised  delivery  of  the  full  Evangelical  Confession 
of  Faith.  ''I  am  exceedingly  happy,"  he  wrote  to  Cordatus,' 
"to  have  lived  to  this  hour,  in  which  Christ  has  been  preached 
through  His  valiant  confessors,  in  such  open  manner  and 
in  so  great  an  Assembly,  by  means  of  this  really  extraordinary 


2  Luther  to  Cordatus,  July  6th. 


440        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

beautiful  Confession,  and  the  word  is  fulfilled :  'I  will  speak 
of  thy  testimony  before  kings;'  also  this  is  fulfilled:  'I  was 
not  put  to  shame.'  For  'Whosoever  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
Heaven.'  " 

Just  as  he  would  not  and  could  not  recant  at  Worms,  so  a 
step  backward  woidd  be  impossible  at  Augsburg.  "Our  Con- 
fession," he  said,  "will  penetrate  into  every  court,  and  the 
sound  thereof  will  spread  through  the  whole  earth."  * 

Though  Lutlier,  if  it  had  been  his  own,  would  have  set  the 
Confession  in  a  different  frame,  and  would  not  have  brought 
down  the  Evangelical  doctrine  to  a  minimum,  now  that  the 
Confession  was  accepted  by  him,  and  had  become  history,  he 
held  it  as  the  final  answer  of  Protestantism  to  the  Roman 
Emperor.  He  was  the  one  of  all  others  who  saw  that  the 
work  was  done.  In  his  eyes  it  was  not  merely  final,  but 
glorious.  There  was  nothing  more  to  be  said,  nothing  to  be 
added,  and  nothing  to  be  taken  away. 

Above  all  other  things,  his  clear  insight  told  him  that  there 
was  nothing  to  be  negotiated.  He  knew  that  the  Romanists, 
even  if  they  were  beaten  in  diplomacy,  would  not  do  more 
than  pretend  to  yield.  He  saw  that  tlie  break  must  come. 
He  wanted  it  to  come  before  the  conscience  of  Protestantism 
was  defiled  by  insincerity. 

He  was  ready  for  martyrdom  or  war  as  the  case  might  be. 
With  far-sighted  intuition,  he  pressed  it  into  the  soul  of  his 
party  at  Augsburg  that  this  was  not  a  time  for  parley. 
Melanchthon's  first  words  to  him,  in  conveying  the  tidings 
tliat  the  Confession  had  been  delivered,  revealed  the  fatal 
misconception  that  was  swaying  the  mild  but  head-strong 
Praeceptor.  If  Melanchthon  were  allowed  to  remain  at  the 
Diet,  he  would  continue  to  exercise  his  fatal  propensity  for 
diplomacy,  and  would  yield  compromise  after  compromise. 


'  Copies  of  the  Confession  were  sent  by  the  Emperor  to  all  the  Courts  of 
Europe,  and  he  himself  had  it  translated  Into  Italian  and  French  (C.  R.,  II, 
155).  It  was  also  translated  into  Spanish  and  Portuguese,  and,  later,  In 
1536,  by  Taverner,  into  English.    American   cd.    edited   by   Jacobs. 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  441 

There  was  only  one  thing  to  be  done,  and  that  was  to  get  the 
electoral  party  away  from  Augsburg.  ''I  absolve  you  from 
this  Diet  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  he  wrote  them.  ''Come 
back  home.  I  want  to  be  the  sacrifice  of  this  newest  Council 
as  John  Huss  was  at  Constance."  He  foresaw  that  Melauch- 
thon,  in  his  present  temper,  and  with  his  dread  of  war, 
would  give  up  everything  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

Already  on  June  29th  he  wrote  Melanchthon,  "  so  far  as 
I  am  concerned,  more  than  enough  has  been  yielded  in  that 
Apology,  which  if  they  refuse,  I  see  nothing  more  which  I 
can  yield,  unless  they  furnish  clearer  reasons  and  Scripture 
proofs  than  I  have  yet  seen.  Day  and  night  I  am  occupied 
with  the  matter,  thinking  over  it,  revolving  it  in  my  mind, 
arguing,  searching  the  entire  Scriptures,  and  there  grows 
upon  me  constantly  that  fulness  of  assurance  in  our  Doctrine, 
and  I  am  more  and  more  confirmed  in  the  purpose,  that  I 
will  yield  nothing  more,  come  what  may.     .     .     . 

The  next  day,  on  June  30th,  he  wrote  Brentz  that  he  was 
afraid  that  Brentz  too  would  weaken,  under  the  influence  of 
Melanchthon   in   the   presence    of   the   Diet. 

Luther  has  no  dread  of  martyrdom :  "God  will  rule  the 
world  better  when  I  am  dead  than  if  I  should  continue  to 
live,  since  I  am  hindering  Him  by  my  life."  On  the  same 
day  he  wrote  Agricola : — 

"I  judge  that  the  Diet  will  have  a  bad  end.  The  Emperor  will  ask  the 
Elector  to  give  up  the  whole  doctrine,  as  they  gave  up  the  preaching  ;  if  he  refuses, 
there  will  be  an  interdict  against  the  doctrine.  This  will  bring  on  the  real  crisis 
of  the  Diet.  For  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  papists,  who  are  under  the  control  of 
the  devils,  are  furious.  ...  I  beUeve  that  they  have  incited  the  Emperor  to 
grant  us  a  hearing,  so  that  after  they  have  heard  our  defense  they  can  carry  out 
what  they  please,  under  the  excuse  that  they  had  given  us  fair  enough  chance. 
You  have  to  do  at  Augsburg  not  with  men  but  with  the  gates  of  hell  itself." 

To  the  Elector  he  wrote  on  the  same  day,  "I  admonish  you 
not  to  be  stirred  by  their  wicked  assaults."  On  June  30th,  he 
writes,  "I  am  filled  with  joy  and  rejoice  exceedingly  at  the 
extraordinary  and  great  gift  of  God,  in  that  our  Prince  is 


442        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

so  steadfast  and  composed  in  his  disposition,  for  I  regard  my 
prayers  offered  for  him  as  having  been  pleasing  to  God  and 
prophesy  that  they  will  be  heard  in  other  things." 

To  Jonas  he  wrote  of  the  Roman  party,  "There  is  no  hope 
that  they  can  be  changed.  I  am  glad  that  they  are  growing 
more  obstinate.  Let  us  only  remain  bold  in  Christ.  He 
lives,  and  we  shall  also  live,  even  though  we  shall  be  dead. 
He  will  care  for  the  children  and  wives  of  those  who  are 
martyred.  If  I  am  called,  I  will  surely  come."  This  was 
on  June  30th,  immediately  after  he  had  received  the  tidings 
of  the  delivery  of  the  Confession.  But  Melanchthon,  while 
lie  felt  that  he  was  being  martyred  daily,  as  he  expressed  it, 
had  no  desire  or  taste  for  the  real  sacrifice  which  a  heroic 
faith  is  willing  to  make.  In  his  heart  there  rose  a  reign  of 
terror,  and  in  times  such  as  these,  he  felt  it  almost  impossible 
to  sustain  himself  without  leaning  on  the  stronger  faith  of 
Luther. 

WAS  MELANCHTHON  FRANK  TOWARD  LUTHER  IN   HIS   REPORTS 
OF    THE   DIET  ? 

Was  Melanchthon  frank  toward  Luther  during  the  month 
of  June  ?  Did  he  have  a  good  conscience  as  to  the  advices 
he  had  sent  Luther  ? 

Whether  he  sought  to  conceal  his  plans  from  the  Elector, 
'"the  old  man," — of  whom  he  writes  disrespectfully,  "who 
is  hard  to  soften," — and  whether  his  private  policy  by  which 
he  entered  into  an  understanding  with  the  Emperor  and  the 
papal  legate  were  marked  by  duplicity,  does  not  clearly 
appear.  He  did  take  Jonas  into  confidence,  and  the  Pro- 
testant party  was  acquainted  with  his  ideas,  and  possibly 
liis  actions,  to  some  extent.  The  question  is,  to  what 
extent  ?  But  we  do  know  that  Luther  was  not  dealt  with 
squarely  in  this  matter.  A  careful  examination  of  'Mel- 
anchthon's  letters  to  Luther  will  show  that  Melanchthon  was 
accustomed  to  understate  or  discount  his  own  desire  and  plan 
as  much  as  possible,  so  that,  although  his  plan  was  quite 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  443 

contrary  to  Luther's  nature,  yet,  in  Lis  account  of  it,  it 
was  made  to  seem  to  be  harmless;  and  Luther  was  pressed 
to  grant  permission  or  give  approval  by  return  post  on 
insufficient  knowledge  of  the  case.  A  study  of  Melanch- 
thon's  method  of  communicating  information  to  Luther  will 
repay  the  reader,  and  will  doubtless  satisfy  his  mind  as  to 
whether  Melanchthon's  reports  of  the  situation  were  unbiased 
and  open. 

So  far  as  we  know,  no  one  has  ever  questioned  the  open- 
ness and  the  thorough  veracity  of  Luther ;  but  Luther  himself 
seems,  at  last,  to  disbelieve  the  statements  that  IMelanchthon 
was  making  to  him  respecting  the  misunderstandings  con- 
nected witli  tlie  mysterious  difficulties  of  correspondence 
that  occurred  several  weeks  before  and  during  the  meeting 
of  the  Diet.  How  could  Melanchthon  write  to  Luther  with 
a  good  conscience  when  he  was  intriguing  with  Rome,  and 
when  he  was  trying  to  hush  up  tlie  truth  concerning  which 
Luther  was  so  eager  to  testify  ?  When  it  comes  to  the  unpleas- 
ant need  of  falling  back  upon  the  rock  at  Coburg,  when 
Luther  is  to  write  and  influence  others,  or  when  his  permis- 
sion on  any  point  is  to  be  gained,  then  Melanchthon  ap- 
proaches Luther  with  evaluated  statements,  and  places  the 
answer  he  wants  from  Luther  into  Luther's  mouth. 

The  break  in  correspondence  during  the  month  of  June  is 
a  mystery.  Some  wrongly  have  supposed  that  Briick  or  the 
Elector  prevented  the  delivery  of  letters  between  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  during  this  interval.  We  have  pointed  out 
physical  causes  for  the  delay,  and  among  these  are  to  be 
reckoned  the  great  amount  of  work  which  fell  upon  Melanch- 
thon during  this  time ;  but  after  all,  there  is  something  ad- 
ditional, as  Luther  surmises,  and  from  which  Melanchthon 
tries  to  defend  himself. 

It  is  natural  that  at  the  close  of  the  Delivery  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  the  party  in  Augsburg  should  wish  to  com- 
municate the  fact  to  their  friends,  and  we  find  more  letters 
written  in  the  several  days  following  the  Delivery  of  the 


444        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Confession  than  had  passed  between  Coburg  and  Aiigsbnrg 
during  the  whole  month  of  June. 

The  letters  of  Jonas  disclose  the  fact,  that,  if  those  of  the 
Protestant  party  who  were  afraid  of  the  danger  could  have 
been  convinced,  Luther  might  have  been  called  to  the  Diet 
by  a  special  herald,  and  that  Luther  was  holding  himself  in 
readiness  to  come.  It  was  probably  his  sense  of  obedience 
to  his  civil  ruler,  protector,  and  friend,  who  had  placed  him 
at  Coburg,  that  held  him  back  from  a  sudden  appearance  in 
the  midst  of  the  danger.  While  the  appearance  of  Luther 
would  have  acted  as  a  bomb  to  Melanchthon's  plans,  yet  it 
is  not  likely,  even  if  Melanchthon  and  the  Elector  had  been 
willing  to  bring  him,  that  the  Emperor  could  have  been  per- 
suaded to  admit  his  presence.  Luther  would  have  gone  the 
way  of  Huss.  He  was  prepared  for  this,  but  Melanchthon 
shrank  from  it. 

A  charitable  view  of  Melanchthon's  case  is  that  expressed 
by  Luther  himself  in  the  letter  to  Jonas  on  June  30th :  "  It 
is  Philip's  philosophy  and  nothing  else  that  gives  him  trouble. 
For  the  matter  is  in  the  hand  of  Him  Who  is  able  to  say 
to  the  proudest :    'No  one  shall  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand.' '' 

June  25th. 

THE  FLOOD  OF  COKRESPONDENCE. 

Let  us  attempt  to  follow  the  correspondence  as  it  flowed 
out  from  Augsburg  on  the  glorious  25th  of  June.  First  of 
all  in  the  morning,  Jonas,  the  favorite  correspondent  of 
Luther,  had  written  him  a  full  running  account  of  events  of 
the  day  before,  and  of  what  would  probably  to-day  come 
to  pass.    Listen  to  his  warm-hearted  narrative: — 

Jonas  to  Luther. 
Colestin,   I,   135. 

June  25th,  J5SO. 

Yesterday  [June  24th]  the  Emperor  met  with  the  electors  and  estates  of  the 
realm  in  the  town  hall  and  heard  Cardinal  Canipeggius  speak.      His  address  was 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  445 

not  long.  He  admonished  the  Germans  to  peace,  and  that  they  should  fight  the 
Turks.  He  did  not  allow  anything  adverse  to  the  Lutherans  to  enter  his  speech. 
Just  about  this  time  an  embassy  from  Austria  appeared  showing  how  their  property 
and  families  were  placed  in  peril  of  their  life  every  moment  through  the  Turk. 
Their  complaint  was  read  while  Ferdinand  was  sitting  by. 

This  day  had  also  been  set  apart  for  our  princes  that  they  might  bring  in  the 
articles  of  their  Confession;  and  they  have  subscribed  it:  our  Elector,  the  young 
princes,  then  the  Margrave  George,  Duke  Ernst  of  Liineburg,  the  prince  of  Hesse, 
the  prince  and  lord  of  Annhalt,  the  council  of  Nuremberg  and  the  council  of 
Reutlingen. 

The  Landgrave  insisted  strongly  that  the  articles  should  be  read  loud  and 
clearly  before  his  Majesty  and  the  estates,  but  King  Ferdinand,  during  the  session, 
brought  first  this  and  then  that  item  upon  the  tapis.  He  whispered  into  the  ears 
of  others,  and  did  not  cease  until  the  reading  was  hindered  for  this  day. 

Nevertheless  this  afternoon  at  two  o'clock,  when  the  meeting  will  not  be 
largely  attended,  our  articles  are  to  be  read  before  some  of  the  princes  in  the 
imperial  chamber. 

We  still  hope,  if  his  Majesty  will  graciously  investigate  the  matter,  although 
I  do  not  know  whether  it  will  happen,  since  he  has  so  many  cardinals  about  him; 
yet  we  still  hope  that  you,  dearest  father,  will  be  summoned  hither  by  a  herald.  I 
cannot  say  how  many  words  of  fleshly  prudence  are  being  used,  as  though  you  would 
not  be  safe  here  from  secret  violence;  but  as  God  has  already  done  great  wonders 
we  will  now  not  let  our  courage  sink.  Although  I  myself  would  not  like  to  cause 
you  suffering  in  such  a  difficult  affair  and  to  undertake  the  dangerous  journey,  but 
the  Lord  will  rule  everything. 

There  are  six  cardinals  here,  and  many  theologians  and  Spanish  bishops. 
The  cardinal  and  bishop  of  Trient  and  Salzburg,  the  cardinal  of  Maintz,  the 
bishop  and  cardinal  of  Rasano,  the  Pope's  legate  to  King  Ferdinand:  these  all 
are  in  the  Emperor's  palace  every  day,  and  Ijesides  these  there  is  a  whole  swarm 
of  clergy  who  encircle  his  Majesty  like  bees  and  are  daily  enkindled  with  new 
hatred  against  us  and  you,  and  do  nothing  else  but  burn  like  fire  among  the  thorns. 

At  exactly  the  same  time,  viz.,  on  the  25th,  before  the  de- 
livery of  the  Confession,  the  Elector  informed  Luther  of 
events  up  to  the  hour  of  writing,  as  follows : — 

The  Ei-ector  to  Luther. 

Chytraeus,   p.    54 ;    Colestin,    I,    1.39. 

/une  2^th. 

We  were  ordered  to  deliver  our  Opinion  and  Confession  of  Faith  in  common 
with  the  other  princes  and  estates.  The  opposite  party,  it  is  reported,  will  not 
deliver  a  Confession,  but  will  announce  their  intention  to  abide  by  the  Edict,  and 
by  the  faith  which  they  have  inherited  from  their  fathers.  But  if  the  Pope  or  his 
legate,  together  with  his  Majesty,  should  ask  them  to  accept  a  new  faith,  very 
graciously  would  they  be  willing  to  do  so. 

32 


446        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Accordingly  we  appeared  on  the  day  of  John  the  Baptist  with  ours  before 
the  Emperor  and  the  King  in  open  audience,  and  offered  our  Articles  in  Latin 
and  German,  the  German  to  be  read  publicly. 

In  spite  of  our  persistent  appeal,  we  could  not  attain  to  the  point  of  having 
the  Articles  read  openly.  The  King  and  the  other  party  most  actively  opposed 
us,  but  we  gained  so  much,  that  his  Majesty  will  hear  these  same  Articles  in  his 
palace.      This  is  arranged  thus  to  prevent  the  presence  of  a  multitude. 

Almighty  God,  grant  us  Thy  grace,  that  matters  will  result  to  Thy  honor. 
Pray  God  diligently  for  us. 

We  will  let  you  know  further  how  matters  develope,  for  we  are  most  favorably 
disposed  toward  you.     Datum,  Augsburg,  June  25th,  1530. 


June  26th. 

WHY   LUTHER   FELT    HURT. 

The  day  after  the  reading  of  the  Confession  was  Sunday. 
But  it  brought  no  peace  to  poor  ]\[elanehthon.  It  was  a  day 
of  woe.  For  he  learned  that  Lnther  was  seriously  offended  at 
him — so  stirred  in  fact  that  he  would  not  even  glance  at 
the  letter  which  Melanchthon  had  written  him  a  week  ago. 
Dietrich  had  sent  this  news  down  from  Coburg.* 

Luther  had  his  reasons  for  feeling  hurt.  Matters  at 
Augsburg  were  approaching  a  crisis,  but  during  all  these  days 
Melanchthon  had  proceeded  according  to  his  own  judgment, 
and,  instead  of  advising  with  Luther,  had  observed  absolute 
silence."  It  was  now  the  2Gth  of  June.  Melanchthon  had 
written  him  on  the  22nd  of  May.' 

Luther  had  received  this  letter,  but  no  more..  ^Vhen 
Apel's  express  drew  up  at  Coburg  en  route  for  ^Yittenberg, 
Luther  found  not  a  line  for  himself,  "Do  you  bring  no 
letters?"  the  messenger  was  asked.     "jSTo,"  said  he.     "How 


*C.  R.,  II,    140   sq. 

'  On  Melanchthon's  behalf  it  should  be  said  that  the  situation  changed  so 
rapidly,  that  advice  from  a  distance  would  only  add  to  the  confusion  ;  and 
this  would  be  an  adequate  explanation  if  Melanchthon  had  fairly  reported 
and  discussed  the  greater  questions  which  did  not  change  so  quickly. 

*  G.  R.,  II,  59.  This  letter  went  to  Coburg  by  special  through-express  to 
Wittenberg. — Kolde,  Analecta,  p.  126.  Luther  had  received  it,  and  referred 
to  It  in  his  letter  to  Probst  of  June  1st,  already  given.  See  footnote  on  the 
Luther-Mel.  correspondence  for  the  letter  Melanchthon  wrote  Luther  on  June 
13tb. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  447 

are  the  men  at  Augsburg?"  said  Luther.  *'Well,"  ^  said 
the  messenger.  Then  Luther  sat  down  on  the  2nd  of  June 
and  wrote  Melanchthon  that  he  was  receiving  too  many 
visitors,  and  that  their  Augsburg  friends  should  keep  quiet 
about  him  in  their  letters. 

The  next  day,  June  3rd,  he  wrote  Melanchthon  again,  but 
not  a  line  came  in  from  Augsburg.  One  day  there  came  rid- 
ing in  an  "express  on  horseback  whose  destination  was 
Torgau.  lie  brought  a  letter  from  the  Prince,  and  was 
asked — 

"  'Did  you  bring  letters  V  He  answered,  'No.'  'How  are 
the  men  ?'  'Well.'  Then,  as  a  wagon  with  venison  left 
here,  I  again  wrote  to  Philip.  The  man  returned  likeivise 
without  an  answer, 

"Xow  I  began  to  entertain  sad  thoughts,  and  supposed 
that  you  wished  to  conceal  from  me  something  evil. 

"  In  the  fourth  place,  came  Jobst  x^ymptzen.  When  asked, 
'Did  you  bring  letters  V  he  answered,  'No.'  'How  are  the 
men?'  He  answered,  'Well.'  I  told  him  how  our  laborer 
here  received  letters  from  his  brother,  the  Marshall  of  Falk- 
enstein,  while  we  in  the  meantime  hungered  and  thirsted  over 
three  weeks  during  your  kind  silence.  Out  of  this  laborer's 
letters  we  were  obliged  to  gather  such  information  as  we  could 
when  we  wished  to  know  anything-  of  affairs  at  Augsburg."  * 

On  the  18th  or  19th,  Melanchthon  did  at  last  get  off  a 
letter  to  Luther.     It  was  four  days  after  the  imperial  entry. 


'  Thus  Luther  himself  to  Spalatiti,  June  30th. 

*  The  quixotic  supposition  of  RUckert  and  others  that  some  of  the  letters 
of  Melanchthon  to  Luther  were  intercepted  by  Briick,  is  groundless.  (See 
Kolde,  Ztschr.  f.  h.  Th.,  1874  H.  3).  Melanchthon  had  really  neglected  writ- 
ing from  May  22nd  to  June  13th  (compare  also  his  own  admission,  C.  R.,  IV, 
1008).  Riickert  has  entirely  overlooked  this  letter  of  June  13th;  and  the 
assertions  of  Jonas  (Kolde  Anal.,  139).  Melanchthon's  neglect  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  his  being  overworked  and  driven  from  post  to  pillar.  How  he 
could  say  on  June  25th,  that  he  had  written  singulis  septimanis,  has  been 
explained.  That  he  had  not  written  for  some  time  before  June  13th,  he 
overlooked  in  thinking  of  the  letter  of  the  13th,  which  he  believed  to  be  in 
the  hands  of  the  nevertheless  angry  Luther,  and  probably  he  could  not  exactly 
recall  the  dates  of  the  earlier  letters.  Moreover  Briick,  who  was  so  often 
offended  at  Melanchthon's  wavering  attitude,  would  be  the  last  man  in  the 
world  to  intercept  a  correspondence  that  would  brace  up  Melanchthon  as  did 
the  letters  of  Luther. — KiJstlin,  Martin   Luther,  II,  656. 


448        THE   LUTHEEAN   CONFESSIONS. 

which  Melanchthon  pictured,  with  the  three  days'  disputation 
on  the  preaching  and  its  result,  and  the  unfavorable  complex- 
ion of  the  Diet.  He  closed  with  the  statement,  "  that  a 
certain  Spanish  confidential  secretary  has  promised  every- 
thing good,  and  has  already  held  a  conference  with  the 
Emperor  and  Campeggius  concerning  my  Opinion.  Every- 
thing depends  on  God.    Keep  well." 

This  was  the  letter  that  Luther  refused  to  open  and  read, 
which  fact  reported  by  Dietrich  reached  Melanchthon  on 
June  25th,  and  which  caused  him  to  turn  to  Luther  in  tears. 
Melanchthon's  misery  apj^ears  more  clearly  in  his  letter, 
which  we  append,  than  we  are  able  to  describe  it : — 

Melanchthon  to  Luther. 
Colestin,  II,  196. 

Sunday,  June  26th. 

We  are  here  in  the  greatest  distress,  and  must  constantly  shed  tears;  and 
to-day,  in  addition,  our  spirits  were  cast  down  to  the  deepest  extreme,  for  we  have 
read  the  letters  of  M.  Veit,  in  which  he  gave  us  to  understand  that  you  are  so 
angry  at  us  that  you  are  unwilling  to  read  our  letters. 

Now  my  dear  father,  I  will  not  still  further  increase  my  pain  with  words,  but  I 
beg  you  to  consider  in  what  place  we  are,  and  by  what  dangers  we  are  surrounded, 
and  that  without  your  encouragement  we  can  have  no  source  of  strength.  The 
sophists  and  monks  are  running  about  every  day  and  try  to  prejudice  the  Emperor 
against  us.  The  bishops  with  one  accord  hate  us  awfully.  Those  who  were  on 
our  side  before,  are  so  no  more,  and  we  are  swaying  in  endless  dangers,  altogether 
forsaken  and  despised. 

I  therefore  beg  you  that  you  will  have  regard  for  us,  who  follow  your  judg- 
ment in  such  weighty  matters,  or  for  the  common  good,  and  will  read  and  answer 
our  letters,  so  that  you  may  support  us  with  good  advice,  and  uphold  us  with 
encouragement. 

We  have  handed  our  Defence  over  to  the  Emperor,  and  I  am  sending  it 
herewith  for  you  to  read.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  it  has  been  made  sufficiently  sharp; 
for  you  will  note  that  I  have  painted  the  monks  in  living  colors. 

But  noiv  the  point  is,  as  I  believe,  ho2V  to  reach  a  decision,  before  our 
antagonists  answer  it,  as  to  ivhat  ive  are  willing  to  yield  in  the  matter  of  two 
forms,  of  marriage,  of  private  mass.  The  whole  transaction  will  probably  turn 
upon  these  points.  Answer  concerning  this,  and  particularly  concerning  the 
private  mass,  as  it  probably  will  not  be  allowed  to  drop  out  of  sight. 

I  have  sent  off  this  messenger  at  my  own  expense,  and  not  long  ago  I  sent  a 
special  one,  but  he  came  back  again  empty.  Our  antagonists  are  al'  eady  taking 
counsel  as  to  what  they  will  answer.     Therfore  everything  is  uncertain.      Sunday. 

Philippl's. 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  449 

FROM    COBURG    TO    CAMERARIUS. 

There  "was  urgent  need  of  writing  this  letter.  It  bears 
the  new  Confession  delivered  the  day  before,  and  with  it,  in 
the  same  breath,  a  request  to  answer  as  to  "ivhat  we  are  will- 
ing to  yield"  in  the  two  forms  of  the  sacrament,  as  to  the  mar- 
riage of  priests,  and  as  to  the  celebrating  of  private  masses. 

In  writing  to  Camerarius  that  day  Melanchthon  had  a 
more  congenial  task,  and  we  feel  that  the  letter,  though  anx- 
ious, is  in  a  different  tone.     It  reads  as  follows : — 

Melanchthon  to  Camerarius. 
Printed  in  Mel.  Epist.  ad.  Camerarius,  p.  139;  C.  R.,  II,  lio. 
June  26//1. 

Yesterday  by  the  grace  of  God  our  Confession  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor, 
and  was  read  openly  ;  and  it  is  said  that  there  was  an  unexpected  silence  and 
attention  among  the  princes.  I  was  changing  and  improving  it  much  every  day, 
and  I  would  also  have  made  still  more  changes,  if  our  counsellors  had  allowed  it ; 
and  so  little  do  I  think  that  it  has  been  written  too  mildly  that  T  am  much  more 
concerned  lest  some  will  take  offense  at  our  liberty;  for  before  we  delivered  it,  the 
imperial  secretary  of  Valdes  saw  it  and  pronounced  the  judgment  that  it  was  much 
too  bitter  and  biting  for  the  opposite  side  to  be  able  to  endure. 

My  soul  is  filled  with  great  and  terrible  anxiety,  not  concerning  our  affair, 
but  concerning  the  absence  of  concern  in  our  people.  Only  do  not  be  anxious  as 
to  me,  for  I  have  commended  myself  to  God. 

But  there  is  something  peculiar  that  has  given  me  much  to  think  about;  but 

of  which  I  can  only  speak  to  you  by  word  of  mouth.      I  wish  you  could  get  our 

Apolog)'  to  read,  but  the  Emperor  forbids  that  it  be  printed.      Again  commending 

you  to  God. 

Philip. 

June  21th. 

A  STUNNIiSTG  SURPRISE. 

The  next  day,  June  27th,  Monday,  Melanchthon  had 
another  stunning  surprise.  In  an  interview  with  Schepper, 
the  German  Secretary,  he  learned  that  the  intentions  of  the 
imperial  court  were  to  deal  sternly  with  the  Evangelical 
party,  and  to  grant  no  concessions  at  all.     It  had  a  crushing 


450         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

effect  on  him.     Jonas  tells  the  whole  story  just  as  it  oc- 
curred : — 

Jonas  to  Luther. 
Enders,  VII,  387. 

Recently  the  cardinal  of  Salzburg  summoned  Philip  to  a  confidential  inter- 
view, through  Wolfesgang  Stromer  of  Nuremberg  ;  and  when  Philip  came  back 
from  him  in  a  very  much  heated  condition  he  told  us,  although  it  was  at  two 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  what  they  had  spoken  of  to  each  other.  "  I  have," 
said  Philip,  "heard  the  most  extreme  threats,  and  everything  but  a  sentence  of 
death.  .  .  .  The  Emperor  will  not  tolerate  us,  the  disturbers  of  the  common 
peace.  They  are  as  sure  as  though  there  were  no  God.  It  is  surprising  how 
they  trust  to  human  might,  and  how  we  are  nothing  but  ants  in  their  eyes." 

Philip  and  I  were  with  Cornelius  Schepper,  who  is  now  the  imperial  secre- 
tary, who  said  :  If  you  have  money,  it  will  be  easy  for  you  to  buy  from  the  Italians 
whatever  religion  you  like;  but  if  your  coffers  are  empty,  your  cause  is  lost.  He 
also  said  :  It  is  impossible  that  the  Emperor,  who  is  now  surrounded  by  cardinals 
and  bishops,  would  accept  any  other  religion,  or  content  himself  with  any  other 
than  that  of  the  Pope.     So  thoroughly  has  the  old  faith  been  drilled  into  his  head. 

Melanchthon  had  written  Luther  on  the  26th,  but  un- 
easy at  the  attitude  of  Luther,  he  follows  it  up  with  two 
others  on  the  27th.  The  one  he  sends  with  Ilornung  (who 
was  off  to  Coburg),  feeling  that  the  latter  might  perhaps 
reach  Coburg  ahead  of  the  messenger  who  had  started  the 
day  before.  It  reiterates  the  feelings  of  the  day  before,  and 
is  enclosed  in  a  letter  to  Dietrich,  so  that  Luther  may  be 
stirred  to  read  it.     It  runs  as  follows : — 

Melanchthon  to  Luther. 

Melanch.,  Ep.,  I,  9;  Colest.  II,  196 ;  Chytr.,  Lat.,  139, -Ger.,  228;  C.  R.,  II,  146;  Cyprian, 
Beilag.,  182. 

/ung  2yth. 

I  cannot  express  the  great  grief  into  which  we  are  plunged  by  M.  Veit's 
letter,  who  has  informed  us  how  violently  angered  you  are  because  up  to  this  time 
we  shall  not  have  written  often  enough.  Never  have  we  been  in  greater  need  of 
your  counsel  and  comfort  than  now,  since  up  to  the  present  we  have,  in  all  the 
most  dangerous  matters,  followed  you  as  our  leader. 

Therefore  I  pray  you  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of  the  Gospel  that  you  will 
interest  yourself  in  us  for  the  sake  of  the  common  good,  which,  unless  you  sit  at 
the  helm,  apparently  must  endure  very  severe  storms.    Christ  allowed  Himself  to 


JUNE   25tli— SEPTEMBER    23rd.  451 

be  awakened  in  the  ship  which  was  in  danger.  We  are  verily  in  much  greater 
danger,  in  which  nothing  more  painful  could  happen  against  us  than  if  you  would 
forsake  us. 

I  dare  not  complain  about  this  to  D.  Briick  so  as  not  to  make  him  feel  worse. 
Up  to  the  present  matters  have  been  in  such  a  state  that  we  have  spent  much  time 
in  weeping.  Hence  you  must  not  think  that  we,  as  though  we  were  Ulysses' 
associates,  had  willingly  forgotten  you;  and  we  have  also  often  written,  which  we 
can  truly  prove. 

Philippus. 

The  hopelessness  of  the  tenor  of  ^Melanchthon's  mind  is 
pictured  in  a  second  letter  to  Luther  written  the  same  day : — 


Melanchthon  to  Luther. 

Cblest.  II,  197;  C.  R.,  11,144. 

Juttg  2jth. 

Our  Confession  was  delivered  last  Saturday  evening.  Now  the  opponents 
are  counselling  as  to  what  their  answer  shall  be:  they  congregate,  labor  in  united 
effort,  and  incite  the  princes,  who  previously  were  sufficiently  prejudiced 
against   us. 

Eck'  spares  no  pains  in  dissuading  the  archbishop  from  further  investigation, 
since  the  matter  is  already  condemned. 

Our  party  is  small;  the  number  of  those  contrary-minded,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  incomparably  greater.  The  archbishop  of  Mayence,'"  the  bishop  of  Augsburgi' 
and  the  duke  of  Brunswick  "  avail  for  us,  although  they  do  not  fight  valiantly 
enough.  It  is  rumored  that  the  dukes"  of  Baiern,  since  they  have  heard  the  Con- 
fession, have  become  more  lenient;  at  the  same  time,  however,  they  are  not 
deserting  duke  George'*  and  margrave  Joachim. '^  These  are  the  shrewdest 
leaders  of  the  other  party. 

The  Emperor  has  written  to  Erasmus""  and  called  him  to  the  Diet.  I  cannot 
perceive  what  good  we  have  to  expect  from  the  very  bitter  hatred  of  our  enemies. 
Not  sure  of  the  demagogues  to  whose  perverted  judgment  we  are  subject,  we 
must  take  our  refuge  in  God  and  expect  help  from  Him.  Only  pray  to  Him  for 
us  that  He  may  direct  our  cause  and  grant  us  peace. 

At  Altenburg "  there  was  for  three  days  a  terrible  electrical  storm.  The 
lightning  struck  two  towers,  those  of  the  fortress  and  the  church,  whereupon  a 
great  flood  followed.     It  terrified  me  very  much. 


But  let  US  turn  to  Luther  in  his  lonely  fortress  on  this 
Monday,  June  27th.  He  had  received  Melanchthon's  letter 
of  the  19th,  and  sits  down  to  pen  a  reply,  the  first  one  he 

9"  A   picture  of  the   German   Ieader;~hip  of  the  age. 
^'  Twenty-four  miles  from  Leipzig. 


453         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

had  written  to  Melanchtlion  since  the  begin  ling  of  June.     It 
is  a  mighty  ej)istle : — 

LUTHEK  EXHORTS^  ENCOURAGES  AND  WARNS. 

He  tries  to  draw  tlie  fangs  out  from  Satan's  mouth  for  the 
sake  of  comforting  the  terrified  Melanchthon.     He  says : — 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

MS.  Cod.  Jen.  b.  fol.  110. 
Colest.,II,  198;  Chytr.,135. 

June  2jth. 

Grace  and  Peace  in  Christ!     In  Christ,  I  say,  not  in  the  world.     Amen. 

Concerning  the  excuse  for  your  silence,  another  time,  my  dear  Philip.  The 
messenger  can  scarcely  wait  till  I  write. 

I  very  much  hate  your  exceeding  solicitude,  by  which,  as  you  write,  you  are 
being  consumed.  That  these  cares  so  rule  your  heart  is  not  due  to  the  greatness 
of  the  cause,  but  to  the  greatness  of  our  unbelief.  For  the  very  same  cause  was 
still  greater  in  the  time  of  John  Huss  and  many  others. 

//  is  not  our  cause.  Why  do  you  thus  torture  yourself  without  end?  If 
the  cause  be  false,  then  we  wish  to  renounce  it;  but  if  it  be  true,  why  do  we, 
with  so  great  promises,  make  Him  a  liar  Who  commands  us  to  have  a  confident 
and  intrepid  heart  [Ps.  55:23]:  "Cast  your  burden  upon  the  Lord."  The 
Lord  is  near  those  who  are  broken-hearted  [Ps.  34  :  19],  who  call  on  Him. 
Does  He,  then,  speak  this  to  the  wind,  or  cast  it  before  beasts  ? 

I  am  also  sometimes  cast  down,  but  not  always.  Your  philosophy  worries 
you  so,  it  is  not  theology.  And  your  Joachim  seems  to  me  to  be  gnawed  by 
the  same  care.  As  if  you  could  really  accomplish  anything  by  your  taking 
anxious  thought.  What  in  the  name  of  sense  can  the  devil  do  more  than 
strangle  us  ?  What  more  ?  I  beg  you — who  in  all  other  things  are  ready  for  the 
fray — to  take  a  stand  against  yourself,  your  greatest  enemy,  since  you  furnish 
Satan  with  so  many  weapons  against  you. 

Christ  died  once  for  sin;  but  for  righteousness  and  truth  He  will  not  die, 
since  He  lives  and  rules.  If  this  is  true,  what  is  to  be  feared  for  the  truth  ? 
But  if  you  fear,  the  very  truth  will  come  to  nought,  through  God's  anger.    .    .    . 

He  Who  has  become  our  Father,  will  also  be  such  for  our  children.  I 
indeed  pray  diligently  for  you;  and  I  regret  that  your  obstinate  anxiety  renders 
my  prayers  ineffectual.  I  for  my  part  am,  so  far  as  the  cause  is  concerned,  not 
very  much  disturbed — yes,  of  better  hope  than  I  had  expected.  God  is  able  to 
raise  the  dead.  He  is  also  able  to  sustain  His  cause  when  it  wavers;  when  it  has 
fallen,  to  raise  it  up  again;  when  it  stands,  to  further  it.  Should  we  prove  not 
to  be  worthy,  let  others  be  to  blame  for  it.  For  if  we  are  not  strengthened  by 
His  promises,  I  pray  you,  who  then  are  the  other  people  in  the  whole  world  to 
whom  they  really  apply? 


JUNE   2  5th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  453 

But  about  this  more  another  time.  I  am,  at  any  rate,  only  carrying  water 
into  the  sea. 

Your  letters  concerning  the  P^lmperor's  arrival  went  to  Wittenberg  yesterday. 
For  they  too  are  very  much  worried  at  your  silence,  as  you  will  discover  from  the 
letters  of  Pomeranus.  It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  messenger,  whom  Jonas  blames, 
but  altogether  yours,  and  yours  alone.  Christ  comfort  you  all  through  His  Spirit 
and  strengthen  and  instruct  you.      Amen. 

If  I  should  hear  that  affairs  and  the  cause  are  in  a  bad  way,  and  that  they 
will  be  in  danger,  I  will  come  in  a  hurry  to  see  the  terrible  teeth  of  Satan  eager 
to  snap  their  prey,  as  the  Scripture  says  (Job  41  :  5). 

Meanwhile  greetings  to  all.     We  shall  send  other  letters  as  soon  as  possible. 

Martin  Luther. 

This  is  a  perfect  letter,  considerate,  consoling  and  full  of 
comfort ;  yet  filled  with  warning  and  blame,  and  threatening 
that  he  would  come  to  Augsburg  himself  and  face  the  teeth 
of  Satan  that  were  throwing  everybody  there  into  consterna- 
tion. 

June  29th. 

A    RED-LETTER    DAY    AT    COBURQ. 

More  Admonition  for  Melanchthon 

Wednesday,  June  29  th,  was  a  red-letter  day  at  Coburg 
for  lonely  Luther.  First  of  all  he  received  the  messages 
that  Jonas  and  Melanchthon  had  sent  him  on  the  26th.  He, 
further,  received  letters  from  Brentz,  Spalatin,  Agricola,  and 
John  Frederick.  Melanclithon's  letter  sent  by  special  mes- 
senger, because  Dietrich  had  told  him  Luther  was  angry, 
also  came  in.  How  should  Luther  answer  it  ?  It  was  an 
important  missive,  and  betrayed  Melanchthon's  lack  of  Con- 
fessional spirit.  Lutlier  sat  down  and  wrote  the  following 
words  of  admonition  and  comfort : — 

Luther's  Letter  of  Comfort  to  Melanchthon. 
MS.  in  Cod.  Closs.;  Cod.  Jen.  B.  fol.  117. 

Jufie  2gth. 
Grace  and  Peace  in  Christ!     I  have  read,  my  dear  Philippus,  your  rhetorical 


454        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

letter,  which  wears  the  garb  of  innocency  concerning  your  silence.  But  mean- 
while I  have  twice  written  letters  to  you,  in  which  I  have  sufficiently  (at  least  in 
the  second  letter,  which  the  messenger  will  bring,  who  has  been  sent  by  our 
laborer  to  the  princes)  presented  the  reason  for  my  silence. 

To-day  your  latest  letters  have  been  delivered  to  me,  in  which  you  remind 
me  of  your  labors,  dangers  and  tears  in  such  a  manner,  that  I  appear  to  have 
afflicted  you  unjustly  with  grief  upon  grief  through  my  silence,  as  if  I  had  not 
known  your  troubles;  or  was  sitting  here  in  the  midst  of  roses  and  was  not  bear- 
ing with  you  any  of  the  cares. 

And  yet  would  to  God  that  my  cause  were  such  as  would  permit  tears  to 
flow.  Yes,  I  also  had  resolved  to  send  a  messenger  to  learn  whether  you  were 
dead  or  alive.  M.  Veit  will  testify  to  this;  and  nevertheless  I  believe  all  your 
letters  were  delivered  to  me.  For  the  letters,  which  finally  arrived  late,  concern- 
ing the  arrival  and  entrance  of  the  Emperor,  came  almost  simultaneously.  But 
this  may  have  been  the  "Ate,"  or  any  other  satan,  "and  let  him  have  what  he 
deserves. ' ' 

I  have  received  your  Confession  (Apology)  and  am  wondering  what  you 
might  like  to  have  changed,  since  you  are  ratsino'  such  a  question  as,  What 
and  hozu  much  should  be  conceded  to  the  Papists.  With  reference  to  the 
Prince,  that  is  another  question — what  he  could  concede,  if  danger  threatened 
him. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  tnore  than  enough  has  been  yielded  in  that 
Apology,  which  if  they  refuse,  I  see  nothing  more  which  I  can  yield,  unless  they 
furnish  clearer  reasons  and  Scripture  proofs  than  I  have  yet  seen.  Day  and 
night  I  am  occupied  with  the  matter,  thinking  over  it,  revolving  it  in  my  mind, 
arguing,  searching  the  entire  Scriptures,  and  there  grows  upon  me  constantly  that 
fulness  of  assurance  in  our  Doctrine,  and  I  am  more  and  more  confirnied 
in  the  purpose  that  I  will  yield  nothing  more,  come  what  may.      .     . 

I  am  offended  at  your  writing,  that  you  are  following  my  authority  in  this 
cause.  I  will  not  be,  nor  be  called,  author  in  this  cause.  If  it  is  not  equally 
your  cause,  it  shall  not  be  said  that  it  is  mine,  and  was  imposed  on  you.  If  it  be 
my  cause  alone,  I  will  manage  it  alone.  .  .  .  If  we  be  not  the  Church, 
or  a  part  of  the  Church,  where  is  the  Church  }  If  we  have  not  the  Word  of  God, 
who  has  it?  ...  I  have  consoled  you  in  the  last  letter.  May  God  at  least 
grant  that  He  is  not  death-dealing  but  life-giving.      What  further  can  I  do? 

The  end  and  the  result  of  the  matter  worry  you,  because  you  cannot  grasp 
it  with  your  hands.  But  if  you  could  apprehend  it,  I  would  not  wish  that  I 
had  anything  to  do  with  it,  much  less  be  its  originator.  God  has  comprehended 
this  matter  in  a  certain  general  doctrinal  article,  which  you  do  not  have  in  your 
rhetoric,  nor  in  your  philosophy:  and  which  is  called  Faith. 

In  this  article  of  doctrine  everything  is  contained  which  man  does  not  see 
and  which  is  not  visible  to  the  eye  [Heb.  11:1,3].  If  anyone  attempt  to  make 
it  apparent  to  the  eye  and  comprehensible,  as  you  do,  he  will  receive  for  his 
effort  cares  and  tears,  as  you  have  received  them.  "The  Lord  hath  spoken.  He 
desireth  to  dwell  in  darkness"  [1  Kings  8  :  12],  and  "  He  hath  made  the  dark- 
ness for  his  habitation"  [2  Sam.  22:  12].  "He  who  so  wills,  changes  it." 
Had  Moses  resolved  first  to  understand  the  end,  how  he  might  withstand  the  host 


JUNE   25th  —  SEPTEMBEB    23rd.  455 

of  Pharaoh,  Israel  might  to-day  yet  be  in   Egypt.      The  Lord  increase  your  and 
the  faith  of  us  all. 

If  one  has  this,  what  can  Satan  and  the  whole  world  accomplish  ?  If  we 
ourselves  have  no  faith,  why  do  we  not  at  least  comfort  ourselves  through 
another's  faith.''  For  there  are  others  who  believe  in  our  stead,  unless  it  be  that 
there  is  not  any  more  a  Church  on  earth,  and  that  Christ  will  discontinue  His 
presence  among  us  before  the  end  of  the  world.  For  if  He  is  not  with  us,  I 
pray  where  then  in  the  whole  world  is  He?  If  we  are  not  the  Church,  or  at 
least  a  part  of  it,  where  then  is  the  Church? 

Or  are,  perchance,  the  dukes  of  Baiern,  Ferdinand,  the  Pope,  the  Turks, 
and  the  like,  the  Church?  If  we  have  not  the  Word  of  God,  who  then  are  the 
people  who  do  have  it?  If,  therefore,  God  be  with  us,  who  can  be  against  us? 
Our  sinfulness  and  ungratefulness  do  not  make  Him  a  liar.  But  you  will  not 
listen  to  this — so  discouraged  and  weak  does  Satan  make  you.  May  Christ  heal 
you.     For  this  I  pray  earnestly  and  continuously.     Amen. 

Greet  all,  for  I  also  cannot  write  the  latest  to  everyone.  I  wish  opportunity 
would  be  given  me  to  come  to  you,  indeed  I  have  great  desire  to  come  without 
being  commanded  or  summoned.  The  grace  of  God  be  with  you  and  you  all. 
Amen. 

On  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  Day  [the  29th  of  June],  Anno  1530. 

Martin  Luther. 

Posiscripi. 

After  I  had  finished  the  letter  the  thought  occurred  to  me  that  it  might  per- 
haps appear  that  I  had  given  too  little  attention  to  your  question,  how  much  and 
how  far  one  could  concede  to  the  opponents;  but  you  have  also  asked  too  little. 
You  have  not  indicated  what  and  what  kind  of  concession  you  think  would  be 
required  of  us. 

As  I  have  always  written,  so  I  now  write,  I  am  ready  to  concede  to  them 
everything,  provided  only  that  the  Gospel  be  left  free  to  us.  But  t/iaf  which 
conflicts  with  the  Gospel  I  cannot  concede.     What  else  can  I  answer? 


Lnther  always  has  faith  and  peace,  and  comfort  from  the 
Scripture.  He  shows  Melanchthon  kindly  that  he  under- 
stands the  latter's  duplicity,  and  reveals  that  Melanchthon 
would  have  yielded  up  much  more  to  Rome  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  if  he  had  been  permitted  to  do  so.  Most  clearly 
does  the  contrast  come  out  between  Luther  the  strong  confes- 
sor, and  Melanchthon  the  timid  temporizer.  The  situation 
in  the  letter  opens  to  us  the  nobility,  devoutness  and  manly 
honor  of  the  Lutheran  principle,  and  the  effeminate,  crafty 
and  complaining  traits  of  the  Melanchthon  principle. 


456         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
June  30th. 

ANSWERING    THE    FLOOD    OF    LETTERS. 

Thursday,  June  30th,  was  a  full  day  for  Luther.  He  had 
grave  replies  to  make  to  the  remaining  letters  of  yesterday — 
to  Spalatin,  Brentz,  Agricola,  John  Frederick,  and  Jonas. 
To  Spalatin  he  tells  the  full  story  of  the  letters  that  never 
came  to  Coburg.  He  shows  his  joy  that  the  Romanists  have 
become  bitter,  and  regards  it  as  a  good  sign.  He  asks 
Spalatin  to  hold  Melanchthon's  pride  in  check. 

Luther  to  Spalatin. 
CBlestin,  II,  p.  200;  Chytraeus,  Lat.,  p.  142— Ger.,  p.  233. 
Jutie  joth. 

To  Mr.  George  Spalatin,  my  brother  in  Christ. 

Grace  and  peace  in  the  Lord!  You  say,  my  dear  Spalatin,  that  I  am  unwil- 
ing  to  be  considered  negligent  in  corresponding;  but  you  are  the  same.  For  of 
Dr.  Jonas'  messenger,  through  whom  you  promised  to  write  copiously  to  us,  and 
to  the  Wittenbergers,  by  Apel,  so  that  we  had  anticipated  forests  of  letters  and 
feared  that  you  might  become  more  noisy  than  our  jays  [we  have  received  not 
one  letter]. 

When  Apel's  messenger  came  with  only  Jonas'  letters  for  Wittenberg,  he  was 
asked,  "  Do  you  bring  me  no  letters  ?  "  He  answered,  "No."  "  How  are  the 
men?"  "Well."  Concerning  this  first  disappointment  I  at  once  made  com- 
plaint against  Philip.  Afterwards  there  came  a  messenger  on  horseback  who  was 
dispatched  to  Torgau,  who  brought  me  a  letter  from  the  princes  themselves,  and 
was  asked,  "Do  you  bring  letters.'"'  He  answered,  "No."  "How  are  the 
men?"  "Well."  Then,  as  a  wagon  with  venison  left  here,  I  again  wrote  to 
Philip.     The  man  returned  without  an  answer. 

Now  I  began  to  entertain  sad  thoughts,  and  supposed  that  you  wished  to 
conceal  from  me  something  evil.  In  the  fourth  place,  came  Jobst  Nymptzen. 
When  asked,  "Do  you  bring  letters?  "  he  answered,  "No."  "  How  are  the 
men?"  He  answered,  "Well."  I  communicated  how  our  laborer  here  received 
letters  from  his  brother,  the  marshall  of  Falkenstein,  while  we  in  the  meantime 
were  hungering  and  thirsting  for  more  than  three  weeks,  during  your  kind  silence; 
out  of  which  letters  we  were  obliged  to  gather  information  when  we  wished  to 
know  anything. 

Would  you  not  say  I  were  negligent,  if  you  had  such  an  experience  with  me  ? 
I  admit  I  was  moved  with  anger  and  fear,  as  I  learned  of  Philip's  cares  and  the 
Prince's  trials.  Yet  I  was  relieved  of  my  fear  when  I  heard  you  were  well,  but  I 
could  not  fully  believe  it.     But  enough  of  this. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    2.3rd.  457 

That  the  kings  and  princes  are  raging  against  the  Lord's  Anointed,  I  con- 
sider a  good  omen,  much  better  than  if  they  were  dissimilating.  For  Ps.  2  says, 
"  He  that  sitteth  in  the  heavens  shall  laugh."  Since  our  Prince  laughs,  I  see  not 
why  we  should  weep:  we  also  can  comfortably  laugh  at  their  vain  resolves. 
Faith  only  is  necessary. 

He  Who  began  this  work,  has  begun  it  without  our  counsel.  He  has  also 
sustained  and  ruled  it.  And  it  is  He  Who  will  perfect  and  execute  it  without 
and  beyond  our  counsel. 

I  know  and  am  sure  Whom  I  have  believed,  for  He  is  mighty  to  accomplish 
above  what  we  petition  and  understand,  although  Philip  thinks  and  wishes  to  be 
doing  it  according  to  his  own  counsel,  so  that  he  may  gloriously  exclaim:  "Surely, 
so  it  had  to  happen,  so  have  I  made  it." 

No,  it  must  not  be  said:  *'  So  /."  Admonish  Philip  constantly  not  to  become 
God,  but  to  fight  against  what  is  inborn  in  him;  for  this  is  not  for  our  good.  It 
drove  Adam  out  of  paradise,  and  only  disturbs  us,  and  robs  us  of  our  peace.  We 
want  to  be  men,  not  God.     On  the  last  of  June,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

To  Brciitz,  LutlicM'  appeals  and  begs  that  Briick  or  some- 
one else  will,  like  an  angel  from  Heaven,  take  Melanchthon 
in  charge,  and  guard  him  from  the  mistakes  of  his  weak 
nature.     He  says: — 

LUTHKR    TO    BRENTZ. 

MSS.  iu  Cod.  Gloss.;  in  Cod.  Jen.  b,  fol.  133. 
Colestin,  II,  201. 

June  joth. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  I  learn,  my  dear  Brentz,  that  you  likewise  are 
being  worried  in  that  Assembly  of  the  gods.  It  is  Philip's  example  that  is  mov- 
ing you.  He  is  zealously  concerned  for  the  public  peace  and  for  posterity,  but 
his  zeal  is  not  wise; — as  though  our  ancestors,  by  their  anxiety  and  care,  had 
brought  it  to  pass  that  we  are  what  we  are,  and  this  had  not  come  about  only 
through  God's  wisdom,  Who  will  continue  to  be  God  after  we  are  gone.  For  He 
will  not  die  with  us.     .     .      . 

I  am  writing  this  in  order  that  Gregorius  Briick  or  some  one  else  among  you 
may  speak  to  Philip  and  get  him  to  cease  being  regent  of  the  world,  that  is,  may 
cease  making  a  martyr  of  himself.  .  .  .  God  will  rule  the  world  better  when 
I  am  dead  than  if  I  should  continue  to  live,  since  I  am  hindering  Him  by  my  life 

Try  to  see  whether  Philip  cannot  be  persuaded  through  you, — of  whom  he 
must  believe  that  you  are  men  of  God, — though  he  is  not  moved  by  my  words. 
He  is  not  so  perverted  that,  if  God  should  command  him  by  an  angel  from 
Heaven  to  be  of  good  cheer,  he  would  despise  the  command.  He  will  not 
despise  us,  if  we  all  admonish  him  thus.  .  .  .  The  grace  of  God  be  with 
you.     The  last  of  June,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 


458        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

The  agony  of  Melanchthon  has  become  a  matter  of  public 
knowledge,  and  Luther,  on  the  same  day  (June  30th),  asks 
Agricola  to  admonish  and  encourage  Philip.  He  also  praises 
the  Elector's  steadfastness,  and  predicts  that  the  Diet  will 
come  to  an  unhappy  termination. 

Luther  to  John  Agricola. 
Cod.  Jen.,  Bl.  24. 

yune  30th. 

Admonish  Philip  that  he  moderate  the  offer  of  an  anxious  spirit,  so  that  at 
last  he  may  not  be  lacking  in  that  wherewith  to  offer. 

It  is  indeed  a  consolation  to  know  that  he  is  troubled  in  spirit  for  the  sake  of 
the  cause ;  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  pleasing  to  God  as  an  exceedingly  pleasant 
savor. 

But  in  these  matters  there  must  be  temperance.  While  the  offering  of  self  is 
acceptable,  self-destruction  is  not ;  and  God  does  not  wish  that  souls  be  led  to 
ruin.  This  is  an  additional  Article  from  the  Devil.  For  to  put  one's  hope  in 
the  grace  of  the  Emperor,  is  idle. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

John  Frederick  is  evidently  deeply  stirred  by  the  violence 
and  treachery  of  Duke  George  and  the  German  Catholic 
Princes,  and  Luther,  with  the  same  masterly  hand  with 
which  he  consoles  and  establishes  the  weak  in  greater  deter- 
mination, now  moderates  the  wrath  of  his  superior,  and 
counsels  quiet  strength  and  patience.    He  says : — 

Luther  to  Duke  John  Frederick. 

Cblestin  I.,  202;  Erlangeu  54.  lo7. 

June  30th. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ !  Your  Grace  now  sees  right  before  your  own  eye 
what  kind  of  a  master  the  devil  is,  who  leads  such  wise  great  people  captive  in 
his  service,  and  undertakes  all  that  he  does  in  swift  deceit. 

And  although  I  know  that  your  Grace — praise  God  ! — is  well  fitted  out 
against  it,  and  can  understand  and  pass  judgment  on  all  their  machinations,  yet  I 
respectfully  admonish  you  not  to  allow  yourself  to  be  stirred  by  the  wicked  assaults 
against  you  made  by  your  nearest  blood  relatives.  When  the  devil  is  defeated,  he 
still  works  to  stir  up  our  heart  to  bitter  feeling.  For  this  the  Thirty-seventh 
Psalm  is  a  good  medicine. 

The  Emperor  is  a  pious  soul,  worthy  of  all  honor  personally,  but  good  God  ! 
what  can  one  man  do  against  so  many  devils,  unless  God  bring  him  mighty  help. 


JUNE   2oth  —  t>EPTEMBER    2  3rd.  459 

It  vexes  even  me  that  your  blood  relatives  carry  on  so  obstinately  ;  but  I 
must  restrain  myself,  else  I  would  be  wishing  them  this  and  that,  I  can  easily 
believe  how  much  more  this  vexes  and  moves  your  Grace.  But  for  God  and  the 
dear  Emperor's  sake,  your  Grace  will  have  patience,  and  will  also  pray  with  us 
for  the  wretched  people. 

If  I  have  made  a  mistake  in  saying  that  your  Grace  is  vexed  at  the  deceitful- 
ness  of  friends,  I  am  glad,  for  from  my  heart  I  mean  it  well.  I  am  commending 
your  Grace  to  God.     Amen. 

Coburg,  the  last  day  of  June,  1530. 

Your  Obedient  Martin  Luther. 


Luther  to  Jonas. 
Colest.,  1, 136  ;  Chytraeus,  141. 

June  30th, 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ !  At  last  your  letters  have  arrived,  my  dear  Jonas, 
after  you  have  worried  us  for  three  full  weeks  by  your  silence.  .  .  .  Time  of 
prayer  left  me  no  opportunity  for  anger.  But  I  have  been  busy  giving  you  a  bad 
name  for  this  silence,  especially  at  Wittenberg. 

It  does  no  good  to  complain  against  the  messengers.  They  have  delivered 
the  letters  faithfully,  especially  the  one  you  hired.  From  the  time  he  delivered 
your  letter  I  received  nothing  except  this  last  one  concerning  the  arrival  and  the 
entry  of  the  Emperor,  and  yesterday  the  one  with  your  complaints,  but  I  will 
avenge  this  in  due  time. 

I  am  filled  with  joy  and  rejoice  exceedingly  at  the  extraordinary  and  great 
gift  of  God,  in  that  our  Prince  is  so  steadfast  and  composed  in  his  disposition,  for 
I  regard  my  prayers  offered  for  him  as  having  been  pleasing  to  God  and  prophesy 
that  they  will  be  heard  in  other  things.  This  joy  of  mine  has  been  increased  in 
that  I  recognize  that  you  are  very  reliable  in  the  Lord  against  this  raging  of  Satan. 

Philip  is  worried  by  his  philosophy,  and  by  nothing  else;  for  the  cause  is  in 
the  hand  of  Him  who  dare  say  to  the  very  proudest:  "  No  one  shall  pluck  them 
out  of  my  hand."  Those  things  that  I  have  been  able  to  take  out  of  my  own 
hands  and  cast  upon  Ilim,  have  been  preserved  by  liim  safe  and  sure,  for  "God 
is  our  refuge  and  strength." 

I  am  glad  the  Pope  has  received  a  new  sign.  He  will  have  something  by 
which  to  despise  God  still  more,  and  will  go  to  ruin  all  the  more  quickly. 

I  cannot  cease  wondering  that  Perdinand  has  forgotten  the  Turk  and  the 
wretchedness  of  his  people.  If  I  were  responsible  for  so  much  destruction  of 
human  life,  I  would  die  in  an  hour,  especially  if  my  conscience  added  that  my 
neglect  had  been  the  cause  of  it. 

Our  bishops  will  surely  be  destroyed.  As  there  is  no  hope  of  changing 
them,  I  am  glad  that  they  are  growing  more  obstinate. 

Let  us  only  remain  bold  in  Christ.  He  lives,  and  we  also  shall  live,  even 
though  we  shall  be  martyred,  and  He  will  care  for  the  children  and  wives  of  those 
who  have  died.     He  rules,  and  we  shall  rule,  yes,  we  rule  already. 


460         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

If  I  be  called  to  Augsburg,  I  will  surely  come,  for  Christ  wishes  it  so,  and 
indeed  I  am  filled  with  the  desire  to  come  unsummoned  and  undemanded. 

The  grace  of  God  be  with  you.      Out  of  the  wilderness,  on  June  30th,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

Finally,  on  this  last  bnsy  day  of  Jnne,  althongh  it  was  only 
yesterday  that  he  had  braced  np  Mclanchthon,  Luther  feels 
constrained  to  write  him  one  more  letter,  and  this  time  to 
speak  more  plainly  than  ever  as  to  the  need  of  firmness  and 
faith  in  Confession. 

When  we  recall  that  it  was  only  five  days  ago  to-day,  that 
the  Confession  was  delivered,  the  greater  part  of  which  inter- 
val M^as  consumed  in  getting  the  news  to  Cobnrg,  and  when 
we  think  how  Luther  immediately  sits  down  and  in  these  two 
days  sends  back  a  whole  '^'forest"  (his  own  term)  of  letters, 
in  everyone  of  which  extreme  efforts  are  made  to  hold 
Melanchthon  firm  and  true,  we  see  not  only  that  Luther 
recognizes  that  the  great  Confessional  moment  had  arrived 
for  the  Church ;  but  that  he  also  fears  that  the  summit  which 
had  been  attained,  would  again  be  lost  by  the  ecclesiastical 
mana?uverings  of  Melanchthon  who  could  never  be  pinned 
down  to  the  immutable  truth,  but  was  ever  modifying  it 
under  considerations  of  worldly  prudence.  How  well 
Luther  knew  Melanchthon — how  near  the  Church  came  to 
being  totally  wrecked,  despite  the  glorious  Confession  of 
June,  by  the  concession  of  ]\[olanchthon  in  July  and  August 
— and  how  wonderfully  Luther  forecast  this  outcome,  as  soon 
as  the  glad  tidings  of  June  25th  were  brought  to  Coburg — 
the  following  history  of  the  Diet  will  show. 

We  turn  now  to  his  last  strenuous  appeal  to  Melanchthon : 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

A  contemporary  copy  in  Weim.  Archiv. ;   Cod.  Jen.  b.,  fol.  III. 

June  joth. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  What  first  of  all  to  write  you,  my  dear  Phil- 
ippus,  I  positively  do  not  know.  For  ray  thoughts  rush  and  surge  at  your  exceed 
ingly  wicked  and  perfectly  useless  cares,  and  I  know  that  I  am  telling  a  story 


JUNE   2 oik  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  461 

fo  one  who  is  deaf.     The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  only  one  you  have  faith  in 
is  yourself .     You  have  no  faith  in  me,  and,  unfortunately,  not  in  others. 

In  personal  conflicts  I  am  weaker,  but  you  stronger  ;  on  the  other  hand,  you 
are  in  public  as  I  am  in  personal  matters,  and  I  in  public  as  you  in  personal 
matters  (if  in  truth  that  can  be  called  a  private  affair  which  takes  place  between 
Satan  and  myself).  For  you  despise  your  life,  and  your  fear  is  for  the  general 
cause  ;  as  far  as  the  general  cause  is  concerned,  my  spirit  is  strong  and  undisturbed, 
for  I  assuredly  know  that  it  is  righteous  and  true,  yea,  also  the  cause  of  Christ, 
which  will  not  fail.  Hence  I  am  a  very  safe  spectator,  and  can  disregard  the 
furious  and  threatening  Papists. 

If  we  fall,  Christ  will  fall  with  us,  and  He  is  the  great  Ruler  of  the  whole 
world.  And  if  it  were  possible  for  Him  to  fall,  yet  I  would  rather  fall  with 
Christ  than  stand  with  the  Emperor.  But  there  is  little  use  in  my  writing  this, 
for  you  will  continue  to  run  these  affairs  as  a  rationalist,  and  in  accordance  with 
your  philosophy.  You  will  continue,  that  is,  as  the  saying  goes,  "  with  reason, 
to  be  irrational."  You  are  killing  yourself  and  utterly  fail  to  see  that  the  matter 
lies  beyond  the  power  of  your  hand  and  counsel,  and  that  it  will  be  carried  on 
regardless  of  any  concern  which  you  may  feel.  And  my  prayer  is  that  Christ 
^nay  prevent  it  from  coining  into  your  hand  or  counsel,  although  you  are 
so  obstinate  in  desiring  to  control  it.  For  if  you  did  succeed  in  getting  your 
hand  upon  the  lever,  we  would  go  down  to  ruin  beautifully  indeed  and  with  one 
crash. 

I  pray  for  you,  have  prayed,  and  will  pray,  and  I  doubt  not  that  I  am  heard, 
for  I  feel  the  Amen  in  my  heart. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

June  26th-30fh. 


THE    SITUATION    AT    AUGSBURG. 

"While  this  voluminous  and  animated  correspondence  was 
flowing  between  Luther  and  the  little  party  at  Augsburg,  the 
Emperor  was  trying  to  recover  from  the  effects  of  the  De- 
livery of  the  Confession,  and  to  decide  what  should  be 
done. 

The  next  morning,  before  breakfast,"  he  gathered  the 
weaker  Protestants,  the  representatives  of  the  cities,  to  his 
ante-chamber  and  sought  to  gain  their  submission  to  the  Diet 
of  Spires;  but  they  sent  word  on  Monday  that  they  could 
not  adhere  to  the  Eecess  of  Spires  ''without  compromising 
their  conscience  before  God."  " 


"C.   R.,   II,    143. 
I'Forst.,   Urk.,  II,  6. 

33 


462         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Though  it  was  Sunday,  he  also  summoned  tlie  Roman  Es- 
tates and  Princes,  and  asked  them  what  reply  should  be 
made  to  the  Confession.  The  strict  Papists  said  :  Execute 
the  Edict  of  Worms  by  force.  The  Princes  said:  Submit 
the  Confession  to  impartial  judges  and  let  the  Emperor 
finally  decide.  A  third  party  said:  Let  a  Confutation  be 
composed  by  the  Roman  doctors. 

George  of  Saxony  and  Joachim  of  Brandenburg  were  vio- 
lent in  denouncing  the  Protestants;  but  the  archbishop  of 
Maintz,  the  bishop  of  Augsburg  and  the  Duke  of  Brunswick 
were  favorable  to  them. 

July  lst-6th. 

THE    CRISIS    OF    THE    DIET ROME    WINS. 

The  Emperor  wished  the  Romanists  to  offer  their  Con- 
fession in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Call ;  or,  if  not, 
that  they  bring  in  accusation  against  the  Protestants.  But 
they  refused  to  be  regarded  as  a  party,  or  to  have  the  Em- 
peror judge  between  them  and  the  others.  That  there  was 
nothing  to  arbitrate,  was  their  claim.  The  question,  they 
said,  was  one  of  crushing  persons  in  rebellion.  The  Em- 
peror was  obliged  to  accede  to  this  view,  and,  thereafter,  in- 
stead of  assuming  an  impartial  attitude,  to  range  himself 
on  their  side.  This,  diplomatically,  was  the  crisis  of  the 
Diet.  By  this  step  the  Pope  won,  and  the  Emperor  lost, 
everything.  Rome  again  was  in  complete  ascendency,  and 
the  Emperor  was  her  servant  and  vassal.  The  whole  inde- 
pendent attitude  of  Charles,  supported  by  Mercurinus,  and 
the  corresponding  basis  of  the  Diet  proclaimed  in  the  Call, 
were  obliterated.  ISTot  only  had  Rome  prevented  a  Council 
but  it  had  conquered  a  Diet.  The  Archbishop  of  Maintz  was 
so  disgusted  that  he  did  not  come  to  the  meeting. 

Twenty  of  the  most  violent  enemies  of  the  Reformation 

»  C.  R.,  II,  175. 


JUNE  35ili— SEPTEMBER   23rd.  463 

were  selected  to  confute  the  Confession  in  the  name  of  the 
Emperor  and  Rome.  They  are  said  to  have  understood  their 
work  to  be  not  a  matter  "  of  refuting  the  Confession,  but  of 
branding  it." 


COULD   THE   EMPEROE  BE   JUDGE f 

Ostensibly  still  impartial,  the  Emperor  asked  each  party 
whether  the  Diet  and  he  himself  possessed  the  right  of  pro- 
nouncing in  this  matter  of  religion."  The  Elector  consulted 
Luther.     Luther  answered  : — 

"The  Emperor  should  be  held  to  his  Call.  For  if  he  decide  without  a 
hearing,  no  Diet  would  have  been  necessary,  but  he  might  have  settled  the  affair 
in  Spain.  He  cannot  be  accepted  as  judge,  unless  he  does  not  judge  anything 
against  the  Scripture^  or  the  clear  Word  of  God.  For  no  Emperor  and  no 
earthly  judge  can  be  set  above  God.  If  the  Emperor  should  receive  this  ungra- 
ciously, as  though  we  were  not  recognizing  him  as  a  Christian  Prince,  he  can  be 
reminded  of  God's  command  that  we  are  not  to  put  our  trust  in  princes  and  in 
human  beings.  Judgment  and  condemnation  without  Scripture,  are  like  a  lord 
without  a  country,  a  kingdom  without  money,  a  learned  man  without  an  art. 

"  Let  the  Elector  only  be  full  of  confidence.  For  Christ  is  here.  Who  will 
confess  him  before  His  Heavenly  Father,  even  as  he  has  now  confessed  Christ 
before  this  wicked  generation." 

The  Romanists  unreservedly  accorded  the  Emperor  the 
right  to  proceed,  as  Roman  Emperor  and  Guardian,  Advo- 
cate and  Sovereign  Defender  of  the  Church,"  since  he  was 
definitely  ranged  on  their  side. 


Juhj  Oth-12th. 

HAVE  THE  PROTESTANTS  ANY  MORE  PROTESTS  IN  RESERVE  ? 

On  the  ninth  of  July  the  Lutherans  were  asked  whether 
they  had  presented  their  whole  Confession,  or  whether  they 


"  Forst..    Vrh.,   11,    9. 
»/&.,   10. 


464         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

were  not  holding  some  articles  in  reserve.  "I  perceive  what 
they  mean  by  this  question,"  wrote  Luther  to  Jonas.  "  The 
Devil  has  noticed  that  your  Apology,  the  Soft-Stepper,  has 
kept  silence  on  the  Articles  of  Purgatory,  the  Worship  of 
Saints,  and  on  the  Pope  the  Anti-Christ." 

On  July  10th,  the  Protestants  made  reply  to  the  Em- 
peror's question  in  one  of  the  most  open,  truthful,  logical, 
noble  and  courageous  documents  ever  presented  to  an  earthly 
ruler.  It  seems  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  Briick,  is  duly 
signed  by  the  Princes,  and  speaks  as  plainly,  yet  respectfully, 
to  an  Emperor  as  was  ever  ventured  by  loyal  subjects, 
intimating  that  the  Emperor  had  better  hurry  on  to  the 
proper  business  of  the  Diet,  and  permit  the  estates  to  return 
home;  but  that  if  it  is  the  Romanists  who  wish  to  raise  the 
question  of  Papal  Abuses,  the  Protestants  are  ready  to  give 
them  all  the  answer  they  desire.  We  do  not  believe  that  the 
document,  which  again  emphasizes  the  rights  and  the  good 
faith  and  persistency  of  the  Lutherans  in  adhering  to  the  Em- 
peror's own  Call,  and  which  convicts  him  of  having  broken  his 
own  word  under  the  influence  of  the  Romanists,  has  been  suf- 
ficiently emphasized  by  historians.  While  its  positive  effects 
were  not  perhaps  so  visible,  it  served  to  render  the  stand 
taken  in  the  Confession  permanent.    It  reads  as  follows: — 


The  Explanation  of  the  Protesting  Estates  that  no  More 
Articles  Will  be  Handed  In. 

Colest.,  II,  118;  Fbrst.,  Urk.,  II,  17. 
Chytriius,  Ger.,  196 ;  C.  R.,  II,  184. 

July  loth,   IS30. 

Prince  of  Noble  Birth  and  Dear  Uncle,  etc. 

Since  you  bore  his  Majesty's  command  to  us,  yesterday  at  seven  o'clock,  that 
we  tell  whether  we  intended  to  hand  in  more  Articles  or  whether  those  already 
delivered  would  be  allowed  to  suffice  ;  we  present  this  friendly  reply: — 

Whereas  it  is  notorious  that  there  are  many  great  and  serious  Abuses  in  the 
Church,  relating  to  doctrine  and  the  spiritual  rule,  which  have  given  cause  to  us 
and  many  others  to  preach  against  them  for  the  edification  of  consciences  burdened 
to  the  imperiling  of  their  salvation. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  465 

And  inasmuch  as  bis  Majesty  has  graciously  given  assurance,  in  his  Call,  that 
these  matters  of  religion  should  be  taken  up  among  ourselves  in  love  and  good 
will,  and  be  settled  in  accordance  with  the  truth  (which  indeed  is  God's  pure 
Word  alone),  as  is  now  taking  place  in  a  Christian  and  proper  manner  ;  therefore, 

1.  We  did  not  specifically  mention  all  the  Abuses  in  the  writing  you  allude  to,  but 
we  delivered  over  a  Common  Confession  and  Testimony,  in  which  is  summed  up 
about  all  the  doctrine  preached  among  us  as  useful  to  salvation,  in  order  that  his 
Majesty  may  fully  know  that  no  unchristian  doctrine  is  taught  among  us. 

We  have  deemed  it  needful  rather  to  emphasize  those  Abuses  concerning 
which  the  consciences  of  our  people  were  burdened,  than  other  Abuses,  relating  to 
the  walk  of  the  clergy,  for  which  they  must  in  any  event  themselves  give  account 
to  God. 

2.  In  order  that  this  matter  might  be  dealt  with  in  charity  and  be  resolved 
with  God's  Word  by  the  truth,  and  that  the  most  prominent  parts  in  which  a 
change  has  occurred,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  might  be  recognized  more  clearly, 
we  have  avoided  the  attempt  to  catalogue  each  and  every  Abuse. 

3.  In  these  Articles  we  hoped  to  have  refuted  such  uncertain  and  unrighteous 
doctrine  together  with  the  Abuses  antagonistic  to  it,  and  therefore  we  deem  it  un- 
necessary to  bring  in  more  Articles. 

4.  But  if  the  opposite  party  raises  the  question  of  further  Abuses  as  its 
"opinion  and  meaning",  in  virtue  of  his  Majesty's  Call  and  the  resulting  presen- 
tation, or  undertakes  to  attack  our  Confession,  or  advance  any  new  position,  we 
are  ready  herewith  to  give  further  report  on  the  same,  according  to  God's  Word, 
as  indeed  we  offered  to  do  at  the  end  of  the  Confession  already  delivered. 

5.  And  therefore  we  most  respectfully  urge,  as  we  came  here  to  Augs- 
burg in  good  season,  in  obedience  to  his  Majesty,  and  have  been  burdened  with 
heavy  expenses  now  for  a  long  time,  that  his  Majesty  would  arrange  to  proceed  in 
accordance  with  and  live  up  to  his  Majesty's  Call,  as  touched  on  above,  without 
further  delay,  as  there  has  been  no  falling  short  on  our  part,  and  also,  if  God  will, 
shall  be  none  in  the  future. 

Actum,  Augsburg,  10th  day  of  July,  1530. 

By  God's  Grace, 

John,   Duke  of  Saxony,  and  Elector, 
George,   Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
Ernest,  Duke  of  Brunswick  and 

Liineburg, 
Philipp,   Landgrave  of  Hesse, 
Wolfgang,    Prince    of  Anhalt,    together 
with  those  Associated  with  us. 

July  lst-6th. 

LUTHER  SPREADING  THE  NEWS  OF  THE  CONFESSION. 

Meanwhile,  in  these  first  days  of  July,  Luther  was  still 
living  over  again  the  heroic  moments  of  the  delivery  of  the 


466        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Confession,  and  describing  the  important  scene  to  his  friends. 
He  criticised  one  point  in  it,  viz.,  that  it  left  open  the  possi- 
bility that  such  confirmed  enemies  of  Christ  as  the  Roman- 
ists who  made  the  Pope  their  corner-stone  and  who  were  to  be 
compared  with  the  Jews  that  rejected  our  Lord,  might  after 
all  be  confessors  of  the  pure  doctrine.     He  says: — 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
Colestin,  II,  204. 

Ju/y  jrd. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  ! 
My  dearest  Philip: — 

Yesterday  I  most  carefully  read  through  your  Confession.  I  am  much 
pleased  with  it.  But  it  errs  in  one  point,  in  which  it  is  contrary  to  Scripture, 
since  Christ  predicts  of  Himself  (Luke  19:14),  "We  will  not  have  this  man  to 
reign  over  us;"  and  it  collides  with  the  judgment  (Psalm  118 :  22);  "  The  stone, 
which  the  builders  have  rejected."  What  can  you  expect  in  so  great  blindness 
and  obstinacy,  but  that  it  would  be  rejected  ? 

They  do  not  grant  us  the  name  of  builders.  We  should  glory  in  being 
counted  with  the  wicked,  as  that  stone  itself  was  counted  with  thieves  and  con- 
demned with  them. 

Therefore  we  have  hope  for  salvation  only  with  the  Lord;  and  He  will 
not  forsake  this  stone,  as  it  says:  "  It  has  become  the  head  of  the  corner."  But 
this  is  the  Lord's  doing  and  not  ours.  Therefore  it  is  marvelous  before  our  eyes. 
Christ  strengthen  you  with  us,  and  comfort  you  with  His  Spirit,  and  deal  with  us 
according  to  all  His  wonderful  powers.     Amen.     July  3rd,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

To  the  heroic  Cordatus,  Luther  describes  the  Confession 
and  the  scene  of  its  delivery  as  follows: — 

Luther  to  Cordatus. 
Ciilestin,  II.  207. 

July  6th. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ!  .  .  .  Jonas  writes  that  he  was  among  the  audi- 
tors, when  our  Confession  was  read  by  Dr.  Christian  for  two  whole  hours,  and  he 
saw  the  features  of  all  that  listened,  concerning  which  he  has  promised  to  tell  me 
by  word  of  mouth.  1  have  a  copy  of  this  Confession  here,  but  must  hold  it  sub- 
ject to  order.  Our  antagonists  surely  have  used  every  effort  to  prevent  the  Em- 
peror from  hearing  it.  .  .  .  On  order  of  the  Emperor  it  was  read  before  the 
whole  Diet,  that  is  before  the  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Empire. 

I  am  exceedingly  happy  to  have  lived  to  this  hour,  in  which  Christ  has 
been  preached  through  His  so  great  Confessors  publicly  in  so  great  an  Assem- 
bly by  means  of  this  really  extraordinarily  noble  Confession,  and  the  word 


JUNE  35th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  467 

(Psalm  119  :  46,  Vulg. )  is  fulfiled:  "  I  will  speak  of  thy  testimony  before  kings;" 
also  this  is  fulfiled:  "  I  was  not  put  to  shame."  For  (Matthew  10  :  32j  "Who- 
soever shall  confess  me  before  men  (so  He  speaks  Who  does  not  lie),  him  will  I 
confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

I  believe  you  already  have  heard  everything  else  from  the  others.  The 
splendor  of  the  imperial  entry  has  been  set  forth  in  print.  .  .  .  Continue  to  pray, 
and  urge  all  to  pray,  particularly  for  the  excellent  Emperor,  the  young  man  who 
is  worthy  of  the  love  of  God  and  man;  also  for  our  not  less  excellent  Prince,  who 
carries  a  very  heavy  cross,  and  for  Philip,  who  is  making  a  martyr  of  himself, 
with  cares,  in  a  most  deplorable  way.  If  I  should  be  called  [to  the  Diet]  I  shall 
also  call  you.  Do  not  doubt  this.  The  Lord  be  with  you.  Amen.  Out  of  the 
wilderness  on  the  Cth  of  July,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

To  Melanchthon,  on  July  r)tli,  he  writes: — 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

calestiu,  II,  206. 

July  sth. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ!  .  .  .  We  are,  thanks  be  to  God,  in  good  hopes, 
not  because  of  your  Diet  or  your  deliberations,  but  because  of  the  power  and 
presence  of  Christ,  to  use  the  word  of  Peter.  They  write  from  Wittenberg  that 
they  are  praying  there  in  the  churches  so  earnestly  that  I  am  convinced  that  some- 
thing good  will  be  accomplished  at  this  Diet.  Greet  Jonas,  Agricola,  Spalalin, 
Briick,  Dr.  Caspar,  and  all  that  are  ours.     July  oth,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

On  July  6tli,  Luther  described  the  Diet  to  Hausman,  and 
"  our  Confession  which  our  Fhilip  has  prepared."  On  the 
same  date,  having  heard  how  ill-pleased  the  most  powerful 
Catholic  ecclesiastic  in  Germany  was  with  the  fiasco  in  which 
Charles  had  surrendered  to  Rome,  and  having  been  told  it 
might  be  well  to  address  the  Archbishop,  Luther  writes  the 
following  letter,  which  quickly  appeared  in  print  at  isurem- 
berg,  and  was  circulated  freely : — 

Luther  to  Cardinal  Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mentz,  Primate  of 
Germany. 

Printed  at  Nuremberg,  1530;  ErI.  XLIV  159. 

July  6th. 

Your  Highness,  as  well  as  the  other  orders  of  the  empire,  has  doubtless  read 
the  Confession,  delivered  by  ours,  which  is  so  composed,  that  with  joyous  lips  it 


4C8        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

may  say:  "  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil;  but  if  well,  why 
smitest  thou  me?"  It  shuns  not  the  light,  and  can  sing  with  the  Psalmist:  "I 
will  speak  of  thy  testimonies  before  kings,  and  will  not  be  ashamed." 

But  I  can  well  conceive  that  our  adversaries  will  by  no  means  accept  the  doc- 
trine, yet  much  less  are  they  able  to  confute  it.  I  have  no  hope  whatever  that  we 
can  agree  in  doctrine;  for  their  cause  cannot  bear  the  light:  Such  is  their  bitter- 
ness, with  such  hatred  are  they  kindled,  that  they  would  endure  hell  itself,  rather 
than  yield  to  us  and  relinquish  their  new  wisdom.  I  know  that  our  doctrine  is 
true  and  grounded  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  By  this  Confession  we  clearly  testify 
and  demonstrate  that  we  have  not  taught  wrongly  or  falsely. 

July  0th.  . 

After  two  days,  July  9th,  Luther  wrote  a  strengthening  let- 
ter to  the  Elector  in  reply  to  the  Elector's  letter  of  July  4th, 
which  he  had  not  received  until  the  9th.  "God  knows,"  says 
he,  "he  is  writing  the  Elector  only  because  he  fears  Satan 
may  overcloud  the  Elector's  heart." 

LiiTHKR  TO  Duke  John,  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Erl.  XLIV,  169. 

July  gth. 

Our  adversaries  thought  they  had  gained  a  great  point  in  having  the  preach- 
ing interdicted  by  the  Emperor,  but  the  infatuated  men  did  not  see  that  by  this 
written  Confession,  which  was  offered  to  the  Emperor,  this  doctrine  was  more 
preached,  and  more  widely  propagated,  than  ten  preachers  could  have  done  it. 
It  was  a  fine  point  that  our  preachers  were  silenced,  but  in  their  stead  came  forth 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  other  princes  and  lords,  with  the  written  Confession, 
and  preached  freely  in  sight  of  all,  before  the  Emperor  and  the  whole  empire. 

Christ  surely  was  not  silenced  at  the  Diet,  and  mad  as  they  were,  they  were 
compelled  to  hear  more  from  the  Confession,  than  they  would  have  heard  from 
the  preachers  in  a  year.  Paul's  declaration  was  fulfiled:  *'The  word  of  God  is 
not  bound."  Silenced  in  the  pulpit,  it  was  heard  in  the  palace  ;  the  poor 
preachers  were  not  allowed  to  open  their  lips,  but  great  princes  and  Lords  spoke 
it  forth. 

Luther  then  answers  the  Elector's  question  as  to  whether 
the  Emperor  had  the  right  to  decide  the  matter  before  the 
Diet.  \Ye  already  have  set  forth  his  words.  Luther  con- 
tinues : — 

Let  your  Grace  be  assured,  Christ  is  here  ;  and  He  will  confess  your  Grace 
again  before  Ilis  Father  as  your  Grace  has  confessed  Him  before  this  wicked  gen- 


JUNE   2 5 111  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  469 

eration,  as  He  says  :  Them  that  honor  me,  will  I  honor. — 1  Sam.  2  :  30.  The 
Lord  Who  has  begun  this  matter  will  undoubtedly  complete  it.  I  am  praying 
earnestly  and  diligently  for  your  Grace.  If  I  could  do  more,  I  would,  for  I  owe 
it  to  you.  God's  grace  be  with  you,  as  hitherto,  and  increasingly.  Amen.  Sat- 
urday, July  9th,  1530.  Your  obedient 

Martin  Luther. 

On  the  same  day  Luther  replies  to  Jonas,  and  tells  him,  as 
he  told  Melauohthon  the  day  before,  tliat  TJome  never  will 
agree  with  the  Evangelical  Eaith.     He  says: — 

Luther  to  Jonas. 

Cod.  Closs  ;  in  ro<l.  Jen.  b,  fol.  130. 
Printed  in  De  Welle,  IV,  85. 

July  gih. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ!  In  these  days  we  have  received  very  many  let- 
ters from  you,  dearest  Jonas,  and  since  that  time  of  silence  we  have  answered  four 
times,  yes  five  times.  This  we  are  now  writing  for  the  sixth  time.  Your  letters 
have  been  exceedingly  satisfactory  to  me. 

I  see,  indeed,  that  now  after  the  argument,  the  prologue  of  the  Diet  is  being 
recited.  The  act  itself,  and  the  crisis  will  follow  ;  but  they  [the  Romanists]  have 
a  sad  finale  to  look  to,  we  a  joyous  one. 

Not  indeed  that  unison  in  doctrine  ever  will  be  restored,  for  how  can  anyone 
hope  that  Belial  will  come  into  concord  with  Christ?  Except  that  perhaps  mar- 
riage, and  both  forms  of  the  Sacrament  may  be  yielded  by  them — perhaps  ! — but 
I  wish  and  almost  hope  that  "the  difference  in  doctrine  may  be  reconciled,  and  a 
political  unity  may  be  made  possible."  "  If  this  should  come  to  pass  through  the 
grace  of  Christ,  more  than  enough  will  have  been  accomplished  at  this  Diet. 

Yox  first,  and  greatest  at  this  Diet,  Christ  has  been  proclaimed  in  a  public  and 
glorious  Confession.  He  has  been  confessed  in  the  light,  and  to  their  face,  so  that 
they  cannot  boast  that  we  fled,  or  that  we  feared,  or  concealed  our  faith. 

My  only  unfulfilled  desire  is  that  I  could  not  be  present  at  this  noble  Confes- 
sion. I  am  like  the  generals  who  could  take  no  part  in  defending  Vienna  from 
the  Turks.  But  it  is  my  joy  and  solace  that  meanwhile  tny  Vienna  was  defended 
by  others. 

It  is  certain  that  we  have  always  sought  peace.  If  we  now  can  reach  the 
point  of  dissolving  the  Diet  and  separating  in  peace,  we  shall  clearly  have 
triumphed  over  Satan  this  year.  For  there  is  no  hope  that  the  enemies  will  do  any 
good.  What  can  I  hope  from  the  Emperor,  good  as  he  may  always  be,  since  he 
is  possessed?  Christ  lives  and  sits  at  the  right  hand,  not  of  the  Emperor  (for  then 
should  we  have  gone  to  destruction  long  ago),  but  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  This 
is  something  incredibly  great.      But  I  am  drawn  to  this  incredible  truth,  and  am 

"^  The  reader  should  note  that  this  is  the  original  basis  of  the  Diet  as  found 
In  the  language  of  the  Emperor's  Call. 


470        THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

willing  to  die  upon  it,  and  why  should  I  not  therefore  also  be  willing  to  live  upon 
it?  Would  God  that  Philip  would  believe  this  at  least  with  my  faith,  if  he  has  no 
other.     .     .     . 

Your  Martin  Luther. 

July  8th-imh. 

THE  MELANCHTHONIAN   SIN   AGAIN. 

But  during  these  early  days  of  July,  there  was  one  man  at 
Augsburg  who  was  filled  with  fears,  and  who  was  again  ready 
to  attempt  a  negotiation  which  would  undo  the  good  work 
accomplished,  and  betray  and  bring  back  the  Protestant 
party  to  Rome. 

Not  that  Melanchthon  thought  of  yielding  in  doctrine,  or 
of  changing  the  first  part  of  the  Confession  at  this  time.  But 
as  customs  and  institutions  were  matters  of  Christian  liberty, 
he  thought  much  could  be  yielded  in  the  matter  of  Abuses, 
and  that  thus  the  opposite  party  might  be  conciliated. 

There  seem  to  be  men  in  the  Church  in  every  age  so  eager 
for  peace  and  unity  that  without  actually  meaning  to  be 
disloyal,  they  take  the  supposed  salvation  of  the  whole  ecclesi- 
astical situation  into  their  hands  and  make  ambiguous 
advances  to  the  enemy  without  realizing  all  the  painful  conse- 
quences that  are  thus  brought  on  the  Church  indirectly  and 
gradually,  and  from  which  she  often  must  suffer  in  subse- 
quent generations  and  perhaps  to  the  end  of  time. 

Melanchthon  had  been  deceived  once  by  the  Romanists,  on 
the  19th  of  June.  Now  he  remained  without  hope  and  be- 
lieved the  threats  of  the  Romanists.  Luther  had  all  along 
taken  the  position  that,  despite  what  the  Emperor  might 
perhaps  try  to  do  on  the  Protestant  behalf,  Rome  would  ad- 
mit nothing.  "  You  are  waiting  for  the  answer  of  Rome," 
he  wrote.  "  It  is  already  written :  Patres,  Patres,  Patres ; 
Ecclesia,  Ecclesia;  usus,  consuetudo,  praeterea  e  Scriptura 
nihil."  The  Emperor  on  the  strength  of  this  testimony  will 
pronounce  against  you." 


'*  Lutherl  Epp.,  IV,  96. 


JUNE   25th— SEPTEMBER    23rd.  471 

But  ]\Jolaiiclithon  was  seized  with  gloomy  desperation.  lie 
could  not  sleep.  He  saw  no  more  hope,""  except  in  God.  As 
we  already  have  found,  he  had,  from  the  very  Delivery  of 
the  Confession,  set  his  heart  on  making  further  concessions. 

After  the  Emperor  was  exerting  all  manner  of  threats  and 
promises  to  cause  the  individual  Evangelical  leaders  to  aban- 
don the  Confession,  Melanchthon  came  to  the  Elector  and 
begged  him  to  yield  on  all  the  Abuses,  and  go  back  to  Roman 
customs  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  provided  that 
Rome  would  grant  the  two  forms  of  the  Sacrament  and  the 
marriage  of  priests.  He  argued  this  at  length  with  the 
Elector,**  and  finally  seems  to  have  secured  his  permission  to 
present  the  matter  to  Campoggius.*^ 

Melanchthon,  asking  for  an  interview  with  Campeggius," 
says,  "We  have  no  dogma  wJiicJi  is  diverse  from  that  of  the 
Roman  Church.  .  .  We  venerate  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
Pope,  and  are  ready  to  obey  him,  if  he  does  not  reject  us,  and 
if  he  will  pardon  or  approve  certain  small  matters  which  we 
cannot  change.  Will  you  reject  those  who  come  before  you  as 
suppliants?  Will  you  pursue  them  with  fire  and  sword? 
Nothing  brings  so  much  hatred  to  us  in  Germany  as  the  firm- 
ness with  which  we  maintain  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman 
Church.  But  with  the  aid  of  God,  we  will  remain  faithful, 
even  unto  death,  to  Christ  and  the  Roman  Church,  although 
you  should  reject  us." 

This  humble  and  obsequious  letter  seems  to  be  almost 
beyond  the  bound  of  credibility,  and  its  authenticity  has  been 
questioned,  but  we  believe  without  good  reason.  Well  does 
a  Reformed  historian  comment  on  this  passage:  "Thus  did 
Melanchthon  humble  himself.  God  permitted  this  fall,  that 
future  ages  might  clearly  see  how  low  the  Reformation  was 
willing  to  descend  in  order  to  maintain  unity,  and  that  no  one 


»C.  R.,  II,  145. 

'*C.  R.,  II,  162. 

"  "  Principes  nostri  miserunt  nos." — C.  R.,  II,   171. 

*C.  R.,  II,  168. 


472         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

might  doubt  that  the  schism  had  come  from  Rome ;  but  also, 
assuredly,  that  they  might  learn  how  great,  in  every  impor- 
tant work,  is  the  weakness  of  the  noblest  instruments." 

We  must,  however,  be  just  to  Melanchthon.  He  was  sur- 
rounded by  most  bitter  enemies,  and  threatened  with  the 
wrath  of  the  Emperor  and  his  most  powerful  princes ;  and  in 
his  interview  with  Campeggius,  he  had  declared,  "We  cannot 
yield  nor  be  unfaithful  to  the  truth.  W^e  commit  our  cause 
to  the  Lord  God." 

This  interview,  for  which  Melanchthon  had  begged,  took 
place  on  July  8th.  Melanchthon  thought  that  he  had  received 
assurance  that  the  Legate  would  yield  to  the  celebration  of  the 
Sacrament  in  two  kinds  and  to  the  marriage  of  priests.  If 
the  Legate  had  yielded  to  him,  Melanchthon  would  thus  have 
changed  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  and,  thanks  to 
Melanchthon,  Lutherans  might  to-day  be  safe  back  in  the 
bosom  of  Rome.  But  the  Legate  humiliated  Melanchthon, 
and  said  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  make  concessions  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  German  princes.""* 

On  this  8th  of  July  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther,  saying 
that  he  would  tell  him  briefly  what  was  going  on  at  Augsburg. 
He  then  describes  the  three  opinions  that  prevailed  among 
the  Romanists  and  declares  that  the  Emperor  reserves  the 
right  of  deciding  the  matter  according  to  his  judgment,  in  the 
failure  of  which  everything  would  be  brought  back  to  the 
old  situation  until  the  calling  of  a  Council. 

"This  last  view  has  not  been  made  known  openly.  We  l\ave  not  yet  been 
answered.  But  I  hope  that  it  will  be  proclaimed  on  the  coming  Monday.  I  am 
waiting  for  it  with  great  desire  for  I  have  learned  by  experience  how  the  Legate 
Campeggi  is  disposed.  When  the  archbishop  of  Maintz  saw  that  he  could  not  ac- 
complish anything  by  much  controversy,  he  remained  away  from  the  meeting  the 
n^xt  day. 

I  have  now  given  you  not  only  the  transactions  up  to  date,  but  also  told  you 
what  is  still  to  be  expected,  without  any  addition  of  my  own.  For  I  see  in  ad- 
vance,  what  a  sad  tragedy  the  intention  of  our  opponents  will  occasion.     The 

"  C.  R.,   II,   174. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    2Srd.  473 

farmer  (Duke  George)  whom  you  know,  is  at  the  head  of  the  play,  and  is  incited 
by  certain  hypocrites  among  the  theologians.  I  cannot  write  more.  Keep  your- 
self well  and  pray  for  us." 

July  ISth. 

l.UTHER    WRITES    STRONG    TO    AUGSBURG. 

Despite  the  meagre  information  that  Luther  received  from 
Melanchthon,  whose  want  of  frankness  seems  incredible  at 
this  distance,  Luther  from  now  on  floods  Angsburg  with  let- 
ters, begging  the  men  there  to  remain  true  to  the  cause. 

To  Jonas  he  writes : — 


Luther  to  Justus  Jonas. 

Ciilestin,  II.  228. 

July  13th. 

Who  does  not  see  that  the  Emperor  is  being  driven  and  led.  If  you  nozv 
stand  Jinn,  and  yield  in  no  point,  you  will  compel  them  to  change  their  pres- 
ent propositions  into  wrath.  .  .  .  You  long  already  have  had  other  plans, 
and  what  you  have  written  me  is  already  old.  But  I  hope  that  my  letters  (for  I 
have  written  at  least  five  times, — to  Philip  I  have  written  that  often)  have  been 
delivered.  The  Lord  Jesus  Himself,  our  salvation  and  life,  our  love  and  trust,  be 
with  you,  as  1  hope.     Amen. 

Yoi'R  Martin  Luther. 

To  Philip  lie  speaks  most  plainly.  This  letter  of  his  comes 
from  the  heart  of  a  hero,  and  shines  with  confidence  in  the 
Confession  of  tlie  truth: — 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

Buddeus,  49,  from  the  Jena  MS. 
C<ilest.,  II,  2>fih;  Chytr.,  lOfib. 

July  13th. 

Doctor  Martinus  Luther,  to  the  faithful  disciple  and  witness  of  Christ,  M.  Philipps 

Melanchthon,  his  brother. 

Grace  and  true  peace  of  Christ !  I  believe,  my  dear  Philipps,  that  you  in 
many  ways  now  realize  from  experience  that  Belial  can  in  no  manner  be  united 
with  Christ,  and  that  one  can  entertain  no  hope  of  concord,  so  far  as  the  doctrine 
is  concerned,  I  wrote  about  this  to  the  princes  that  our  cause  cannot  be  left  to 
the  Emperor  as  judge.  And  now  we  perceive  the  purpose  of  the  writing  that 
contains  the  so-gracious  Call.     But,  perhaps,  the  matter  had  already  progressed  too 


474         THE   LU  THEE  AN    CONFESSIONS. 

far  before  my  letter  arrived.  But  at  least  for  myself  I  WILL  NOT  YIELD  A  HAIR's- 
breadth/"  nor  allow  that  the  matter  be  again  brought  into  the  former  situation 
[restitui] ;  I  will  rather  await  all  external  danger,  since  they  proceed  so  deter- 
minedly. 

The  Emperor  may  do  what  he  can.  Bu/  J  wish  to  know  what  YOU  have 
done.  I  wish  that  you  would  not  permit  yourself  to  be  disturbed  on  account  of 
the  victory  and  boastfulness  of  the  enemies,  but  that  you  would  establish  yourself 
against  it  through  the  power  and  strength  and  might  of  Him  Who  raised  Christ 
from  the  dead  and  will  quicken  us  with  Him  and  raise  us. 

Martin  Lutker. 


THE  CONFUTATION  FINISHED. 

On  the  13th  of  July,  the  E,oman  Confutation  was  com- 
pleted. "  Eck  with  his  band,"  ^'  said  Melanchthon,  "  trans- 
mitted it  to  the  Emperor."  It  was  found,  by  all,  to  be  con- 
fused, violent,  thirsting  for  blood.*^  The  Emperor  turned 
from  such  an  impossible  document,  to  the  plan  of  sending 
delegations  to  visit  each  of  the  Protestant  leaders  alone  and 
subdue  them  singly  by  threats. 

July  15th-20th. 

THE  PROTESTANT  PRINCES  THREATENED. 

The  Margrave  was  approached  by  his  two  cousins,  the  arch- 
bishop of  Maintz  and  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  and  by  his 
two  brothers,  but  without  effect.  Another  delegation  waited 
on  the  Elector  John  and  attempted  to  compel  him  to  re- 
nounce the  heresy  of  Luther  with  many  threats.  lie  was  ac- 
cused of  being  in  league  with  the  Swiss  (whose  Confessions 
were  just  at  this  time  being  laid  before  the  Emperor).  He 
was  threatened  with  a  refusal  to  confirm  his  son's  marriage 
and  with  the  loss  of  the  electorate,  and  that  Duke  George  of 
Saxony  would  be  made  elector  in  his  place.     The  Elector 


*"  Ne  pilum  quidem   cedam. 
»'  C.  R.,  II,  193. 

"  Adeo  confusa,  incondita,  violenta,  sanguinolenta  et  crudelis  ut  puduerlnt. — 
lb..  198. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  475 

wrote  a  brief  and  calm  note  to  Luther  on  this  day,  simply  say- 
ing that  they  were  still  waiting  to  hear  from  the  Romanists, 
who  are  not  in  unity  with  each  other.  On  this  day  Melanch- 
thon  also  wrote  to  Luther  as  follows : — 


Melanchthon  to  Luther. 
Calest.,  II.,  233;  Chytr.,  Ger.,  215. 

July  15th. 

I  have  written  to  you  that  new  plans  are  frequently  undertaken.  Yesterday 
it  was  decided  in  the  electoral  and  princely  counsels,  that  the  Emperor  should 
again  be  petitioned  to  bring  about  a  Council  for  the  whole  German  empire. **  To 
this  it  was  added  that  the  purpose  should  be  made  that  the  peace  should  not  be 
broken.  Our  people  were  not  in  unison  as  to  including  the  second  point,  although 
they  have  decided  on  this,  and  have  given  certain  reasons.  The  reasons  do  not 
particularly  please  me.     We  desire  to  seem  to  be  too  prudent. 

I  am  sending  you  a  list  of  the  writings  which  our  enemies  have  delivered  to  his 
imperial  Majesty.  You  will  see  there  that  they  have  appended  some  contradictory 
articles  to  the  Confutation  with  a  bad  design,  namely,  that  they  may  embitter  his 
Majesty's  gentle  heart  against  us.  Such  stabs  in  the  dark  these  wicked  ones  make 
against  us.  If  it  comes  to  answering  them,  I  shall  indeed  repay  these  wild  blood- 
hounds. 

I  have  several  times  visited  the  intimate  companions  of  our  enemy  Eck.  It  is 
impossible  to  say  how  deeply  embittered  that  pharisaic  hatred  is  which  I  have 
noticed  in  them.  They  are  doing  and  thinking  of  nothing  else  than  of  stirring  up 
the  Princes  against  us,  and  of  causing  the  pious  Emperor  to  enter  into  a  godless 
work  against  us.     Pray  for  us.     Friday,  July  15th. 


**  "  The  Emperor  wanted  a  Council,  and  even  the  Catholic  Princes  thought 
a  General  Council  necessary,"  Campeggi  wrote  to  Rome.  In  the  Imperial 
Instruction  given  to  the  commissioners  at  the  Diet  of  Spires  in  1526,  it  had 
been  expressly  stated  that  "  His  Majesty  would  not  decide  at  the  Diet  any 
matters  of  religion,  but  would  continue  to  petition  the  Pope  for  a  Council."  In 
the  Preface  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  1530,  the  stand  was  taken  that  at 
the  Regensburg  Diet  In  1527,  a  Council  was  appealed  to,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Emperor.  Although  the  document  is  no  longer  in  existence,  it  cannot  be 
doubted,  since  nearly  all  the  men  who  had  been  present  at  Regensburg  three 
years  earlier  were  still  'living  and  most  of  them  were  present  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg.  Moreover  Cardinal  Campeggius  himself  wrote  to  Clement  VII. 
from  Augsburg  In  1530,  that  all  the  Catholic  Princes  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg 
maintained  that  a  Council  was  necessary. — Raynaldus,  an.,  1530,  n.  171. 
Raynaldus  further  writes  of  the  Pope,  that,  although  he  had  been  petitioned 
by  the  German  assemblies  of  the  Nation,  and  by  the  Emperor  himself  In  the 
year  1529,  yet  he  had  an  antipathy  to  the  Council. — An.,  1529,  n.  48  ;  Cyprian, 
pp.  42-43. 


476         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

On  July  14tli  Melanchthon  had  also  written  to  Luther  a 
letter  as  follows: — 


Melanchthon  to  Luther. 
CSlest.,  II,  288;  Ohytr.,  161. 

Juty  14th. 

Yesterday  I  received  two  letters  from  you.  You  write  more  frequently  and 
of  more  pleasant  matters  than  we.  Nothing  has  been  decided  in  our  affair  up  to 
now.  At  present  deliberations  are  being  held  daily.  Christ  grant  that  they  may 
bring  about  peace.  Eck  has  handed  in  a  Confutation  of  our  Confession.  It  is  not 
yet  come  to  light,  but  I  hear  from  good  friends  that  it  is  a  long  document  full  of 
libel. 

Zwingli  has  sent  a  printed  Confession  here.  People  are  ready  to  swear  that 
he  is  entirely  insane.  In  dealing  with  Original  Sin  and  the  use  of  Sacraments  he 
revamps  the  old  errors.  As  to  Ceremonies  he  talks  like  a  barbarian,  and  would 
have  them  all  put  aside.  He  insists  on  his  [erroneous]  teaching  on  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  also  wants  to  root  out  all  Bishops.  I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  the 
writing  when  I  receive  it. 

I  am  sending  you  the  Questions  concerning  Traditions,  and  asking  you  to 
write  in  full  regarding  them,  for  nothing  in  all  our  disputations  gives  us  mors 
trouble  than  that  which  seems  the  easiest.  And  indeed  it  is  a  small  matter.  The 
doctrines  of  men  are  but  traps  for  the  conscience,  whether  they  are  adhered  to,  or 
whether  they  are  abolished.  We  have  a  sure  foundation  in  Justification  ;  but 
that  in  the  other  Article  of  Liberty — that  one  must  also  maintain  external  liberty — 
gives  much  offense.  I  am  naming  Liberty,  as  even  Paul  adhered  to  the  Law 
among  the  Jews.  I  have  set  down  many  of  the  causes  of  human  Traditions,  how 
they  originate,  so  that  you  may  better  see  what  is  the  matter  with  me. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Mass  and  in  the  first  draft  of  the  Articles  of  Faith,  I 
think  I  have  been  careful  enough  ;  but  in  the  matter  of  Traditions,  I  am  not  yet 
satisfied  with  myself  in  this  writing  [the  Confession].  I  believe  also  that  our 
enemies  will  make  a  great  noise  concerning  the  spiritual  orders.  Keep  well, 
July  14th,  1530. 


With  this  came  five  Causes  ®f  churchly  Traditions,  and 
Melanchthon  says:  "Answer  me  whether  it  is  necessary  to 
adhere  to  Traditions  because  of  the  power  and  word  of 
authority,  and  whether  such  Traditions  bind  the  conscience". 

Luther  replies  to  Melanchthon  in  an  extended  treatise  of 
July  21st,  which  he  closes  as  follows: — 


JUNE   35th  — SEPTEMBER    2Srd.  477 

LUTHER   TO    MELAjNCHTHON. 

*'But  these  thing's  yon  despise  as  coming  from  a  mere  coarse 
farmer.  Nevertheless  they  are  worth  a  good  deal  in  answer 
to  yonr  precocious  and  useless  questions.  Yon  see  this,  that 
those  Romanists  do  not  want  any  less,  and  can  want  nothing 
less,  than  that  they  may  rule  over  the  churches  according  to 
their  worldly  right,  and  only  so  that  they  are  regarded  as 
Princes  of  the  world.  They  want  to  be  Bisho])S,  and  if  they 
did  not  want  to  be  that,  what  would  they  be  ?  What  would 
they  remain? 

"  Therefore,  I  wish  you  were  of  a  little  quieter  disposition. 
You  worry  even  me  with  your  vain  anxiety.  It  almost  vexes 
me  to  write  to  you,  when  I  see  that  I  am  accomplishing 
nothing  with  my  words.  Though  I  be  rude  in  speech,  yet  I 
am  not  in  knowledge.  II  Cor.  11:6.  Christ  be  with  you. 
Amen.     July  21st.     Your  Martin  Luther." 

Meantime,  on  July  16th,  the  Count  Palatine  Frederick 
and  Count  Henry  of  Nassau  came  to  the  Elector  and  declared 
that  the  Emperor  would  probably  not  grant  him  the  investi- 
ture to  the  electorate."  To  this  the  Elector  made  reply  on 
July  21st.''  The  reply  touches,  first,  the  question  of  the  in- 
vesture  ;  second,  the  question  of  faith  ;  and  third,  the  question 
of  the  league  with  other  Protestants. 

In  the  letter  Avritten  to  Niclas  von  Ende  on  July  28th,"  the 
Elector  says  that  he  had  received  no  answer  from  the  Em- 
peror up  to  date  although  to-day  or  to-morrow  it  would  be 
five  weeks  since  he  had  answered  the  Emperor,  that  he  had 
requested  that  he  be  invested  with  the  electorate,  and  that 
this  was  declined.  That  he  had  asked  for  the  investiture  a 
second  time,  and  had  not  yet  received  any  answer.  He  con- 
cludes that  the  Emperor  is  offended  at  him,  and  that  his  own 


"  The  document   is   found   in    Miiller,    Historie,   III,    p.   671. 
^  Pound  in   Colest.,  II,    245  ;    Chytr.,   Lat.,   125. 
«•  MuUer,  Hist.,  Ill,  p.   685. 

34 


478        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

friends  (blood-relatives)  have  caused  this  "for  his  imperial 
Majesty  has  not  yet  vouchsafed  us  one  word.  So  we  wait 
here  at  great  expense.  We  have  to-day  with  us  one  hundred 
and  fifty  horses,  and  have  consumed  a  great  amount  of 
money,  and  have  had  to  borrow  12,000  gulden  here." 

Everywhere  it  was  said  that  George  would  be  proclaimed 
Elector  instead  of  John.  On  the  28th  of  July  many  princes 
were  invested  with  their  dignities,  but  the  Elector  was 
excluded.  Before  long  he  even  was  informed  that,  if  he  did 
not  yield,  the  Emperor  would  expel  him  from  his  estates  and 
inflict  the  severest  punishment  on  him."  It  was  a  dreadful 
ordeal  for  the  faithful  man,  but  the  Elector  finally  made  the 
right  choice.  He  declared  that  he  intended  to  confess  his 
Saviour. 

On  the  21st  of  Jvily  he  replied  to  Charles'  arguments.  He 
proved  that  the  Emperor  could  not  refuse  him  the  investiture, 
and  that  the  Diet  of  Worms  had  secured  it  for  him.  As  to 
faith,  he  said  that  in  the  Confession  he  was  not  merely  adhei'- 
ing  to  what  his  theologians  said,  but  that  he  himself  recog- 
nized that  God's  Word  was  not  based  on  Rome's  teaching, 
and  that  here  and  noiv  he  once  more  confessed  all  the  articles 
of  the  Confession,  and  he  entreated  the  Emperor  to  permit 
him  and  his  to  be  accountable  to  God  only  in  matters  per- 
taining to  the  salvation  of  their  souls." 

August  3rd. 

CONFUTATION   READ  IN  THE  DIET. 

At  last,  on  the  3rd  of  August,  the  new  Confutation  was 
read  before  the  Diet.  It  approved  some  articles  of  the  Con- 
fession and  condemned  others.  It  declared  that  the  doctrines, 
on  the  Trinity,  on  Christ,  on  Baptism,  on  eternal  punish- 
ment, on  the  origin  of  evil,  and  the  assertion  that  faith  was 


^'  Miiller,  Gesch.,  d.  Protestaiion. 
^  Forst.,    Vrk.,  pp.    80-119. 


JUNE   25tli  — SEPTEMBER    2  3rd.  479 

necessary  in  the  sacrament,  in  the  Protestant  Confession, 
were  right. 

Canierarins,  concealed  in  the  chapel  of  the  palace,  heard 
the  Confutation  read  and  rej)orted  verbally  to  Melanchthon. 
Melanchthon  was  still  very  much  frightened  and  once  again 
interviewed  the  papal  Legate  on  August  the  4th,  asking  him 
to  grant  the  two  points  of  the  mass  and  marriage,  and  de- 
clared that  then  the  Lutheran  pastors  would  return  to  the 
government  of  the  Roman  bishops. 

Melanchthon  had  an  idea  that  if  the  Protestant  Churcli 
were  returned  to  the  lloman  Bishops,  it  would  nevertheless 
not  be  subject  to  the  old  Roman  usages,  just  as  little  as  the 
New  Testament,  as  St.  Paul  says,  was  subject  to  the  Old 
Testament  ordinances.  This  clever  notion  assumed  gi'eat 
importance  in  Melanchthon's  mind,  and  he  persisted  in  thus 
attempting  to  point  out  the  solution,  especially  in  his  corre- 
spondence with  Luther.  The  letters  of  July  27th,  August 
3rd  and  4th,  and  others,  between  the  two  men,  are  occupied 
with  this  discussion. 


July  19iJi- August  Jfth. 

LUTHER^S  CORRESPONDENCE,  UP  TO  THE  CONFUTATION". 

Melanchthon  is  a  reed  shaken  by  the  wind,  which  Luther 
must  steady. 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
Colestin,  II,  Bl.  231  b. 

July  igth. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !     You  do  not  write,  my  Dear  Philip,  but  I  do. 

The  matter  tends  toward  an  outcome  similar  to  that  at  Worms,  viz.,  that  the 
Emperor  is  to  be  the  judge.  So  far  as  I  see,  the  other  side  offers  nothing  but 
mere  threats,  threats  against  the  Lord  and  His  anointed.  David,  the  victor  of 
Goliath,  calls  threats  vain.  He  who  dies  because  of  threatening,  shall  surely  be 
brought  to  the  grave.  You  are  not  conquered  by  others,  but  by  yourself.  Though 
we  constantly  hear  threats,  threats  are  nothing  but  stubble  and  reed,  which  the 
Lord  knows  and  perceives. 


480         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

But  grant  that  war  and  violence  should  follow  ;  it  has  not  actually  begun  ;  and 
meanwhile  something  may  happen  ;  and  even  when  it  begins  in  fact,  it  has  not  yet 
bad  a  continuation,  and  if  it  should  have  a  continuation,  it  has  not  yet  triumphed. 

Do  be  strung  in  the  Lord.     Amen. 

July  19th,  1530. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

July  2oth. 

It  was  a  great  affliction  for  me  that  I  could  not  be  present  with  you  in  person  at 
that  most  beautiful  and  holy  Confession  of  Christ  [pulcherritna  et  sanctissitna). 


But  though  he  had  a  warm  heart  of  praise  for  Melanch- 
thon, Luther's  wisdom  and  word  always  strnck  at  the  main 
root  of  things.  The  Papacy  had  been  passed  by  in  silence  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  result  of  saving  up  tlie 
Thirty  Years'  War  for  the  next  century.  Luther  believed 
in  dealing  with  the  Pope  straight  from  the  shoulder.  He 
mentions  the  matter  to  Jonas  at  this  time: — 


Luther  to  Justus  Jonas. 

MS.  in  WolfbUt.,  Cod.  Helmst.  108.  fol.  67 ;  Cod.  Jen.  b.  fol.  194. 
Ccilest.,  II,  233  b ;  Erl.,  VIII,  133. 

July  2ist. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  At  last  you  have  awakened.  Philip  is  very 
skillful  in  excusing  you,  but  it  is  easy  to  deceive  a  man  like  myself,  who  is  neither 
a  rhetorician  nor  a  dialectician,  with  the.se  arts. 

But  I  am  deceived  in  my  hope,  as  I  thought  you  would  come,  struck  long  ago 
by  an  Edict  of  the  Emperor. 

Satan  still  lives,  and  has  observed  that  your  Apology,  treading  softly,  has 
passed  over  the  Article  of  Purgatory,  of  the  Worship  of  Saints,  and  most  of  all  of 
the  Pope  as  Atitichrist. 

Unhappy  Emperor,  if  he  proposes  to  give  up  the  Diet  to  listening  to  Confuta- 
tions of  Luther,  as  if  the  present  Apology  did  not  give  them  enough  to  answer  ! 


As  to  the  bold  Reformed  Confessions  that  had  come  in, 
and  which  Melanchthon  and   Jonas  deplored   because  they 


JUNE   25lh  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  481 

stirred  up  the  Emperor  and  the  Komanists  to  enmity,  Luther 
writes : — 

Luther  to  Jonas. 

July  2ist. 

I  really  like  Zwingli  and  Bucer  !  Thus  also  shall  God  bring  them  forward  at 
that  day  !  Indeed,  we  might  now  enter  into  a  brotherhood  with  these  persons  ! 
But  after  the  departure  of  the  Emperor,  they  will  again  be  different  people.  If 
you  are  not  satiated  with  the  Diet,  then  I  am  astounded  :  I  am  tired.  I  desire  to 
be  the  sacrifice  of  this  last  Council,  as  John  Huss  at  Constance  was  the  sacrifice  of 
the  last  papal  triumph. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 


Six  days  later,  Luther  wrote  to  Agricola  urging  loyalty 
and  steadfastness.     This  strong  letter  runs  as  follows : — 


To  John  Agricola,  Eisleben, 
TV.  by  Currie. 

July  27th. 

It  is  an  old  device  of  Satan  that  when  he  is  beaten  by  the  truth  he  diverts 
people's  attention  to  secondary  matters,  so  preventing  them  attending  to  the  main 
thing. 

Let  us  therefore  cleave  to  our  cause  and  not  yield. 

I  am  sure  their  eyes  are  shut,  for  I  regard  them  as  dei'ils  incarnate. 

No  more  senseless  demand  has  ever  been  made  than  that  everything  should 
remain  as  it  was  and  their  ideas  be  accepted,  while  ours  are  cast  aside,  especially 
as  they  themselves  admit  that  we  are  right  in  many  respects.  For  this  is  tanta- 
mount to  expecting  that  our  Apology,  which  even  they  praised,  should  be  dis- 
avowed by  us  before  the  whole  world. 

Martin  Luther. 

Juhj  27tJi-Aiifjust  J^th. 

MELAXGHTHON    PUSHES    HIS    PLAX. 

Melanchthon  Inquires  Concerning  Rites  and  Ordinances. 

Colest.,  II,  291  ;  Chytr.,  Ger.,  261 ;  C.  R.,  II.  229. 

July  27th. 

1.  The  Confutation  is  being  shorn  of  its  abusive  expressions,  and  to-day  I  un- 
derstood from  Campeggius  that  it  would  be  forthcoming  in  a  few  days.     When  it 


483        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

appears,  we  can  approximately  decide  i/ie  time  of  our  departure.     If  they  agree 
to  our  answering  it,  we  will  not  stay  much  longer. 

2.  Erasmus  has  again  written  to  the  Emperor,  and  he  is  evidently  pleased  with 
our  cause  so  far  as  the  marriage  of  the  priests,  vows  and  the  two-fold  mode  is  con- 
cerned.     For  he  specially  mentioned  these  Articles. 

3.  It  appears  to  me  that  you  are  somewhat  stirred  up  in  your  answers  concern- 
ing human  ordinances.  But  I  pray  that  you  will  approve  my  Disputation. 
These  are  great  matters,  and  those  who  are  here  give  me  little  help.  I  am  of  the 
full  assurance  that  the  bishops  dare  not  encumber  the  Church  with  their  ordi- 
nances, and  I  also  have  thus  written  in  the  Confession,  and  will  not  alter  toe 
same. 

At  Augsburg,  July  27th,  1530- 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
MS. :  Aurifaber's  unprinted  Collection,  III,  Bl.  72. 
July  30th. 

To  Philip  Melanchthon,  the  faithful  confessor  of  Christ,  and  genuine  witness: 

Grace  and  peace  in  our  Lord  ! 

I  am  thinking  that  you  have  battled  sharply  with  the  bad  spirits  this  week.  .  .  . 
I  am  with  you  in  faith  and  spirit  as  much  as  I  can  be ;  but  I  believe  that  a  very 
weak  faith  in  Christ  is  with  you  more.  I  am  praying  Him  in  sobs  and  words 
which  He  Himself  has  commanded  and  given. 

The  Lord  grant  that  you  abide  steadfast  in  the  cause,  and  do  not  allow 
yourself  to  be  drawn  into  a  war  of  accusations.  I  believe  that  the  opponents 
are  aiming  at  that  very  thing  since  they  are  not  fully  sure  of  their  cause. 

But  what  will  the  end  be,  if  you  begin  to  excuse  and  cover  over  the 
abomination  of  the  Pope  against  God  and  the  civil  rule?  By  God's  grace 
you  will  know  better  how  to  avoid  this. 

If  I  cannot  read  and  write,  I  am  able  nevertheless  to  think  and  pray,  and  thus 
in  this  way  work  powerfully  against  him. 

My  dear  Philip,  see  to  it  that  you  do  not  torture  yourself  in  this  affair,  which  is 
not  in  your  hand  but  in  the  hand  of  Him  Who  is  greater  than  the  world,  and  out 
of  Whose  hand  no  one  can  tear  it  away. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

Jenaer  MS. :  Flacius,  I-at.,  Briefsam. 
Colest.,  II,  292;  Chytr.,  168. 

August  3rd. 

To  his  exceedingly  dear  Brother  : — 

Grace  and  peace  !     Now  you  are  writing  me   already  for   the  third  or  fourth 
time  concerning  the  Ordinances,  my  dear  Fhilippus.     Either  I  do  not  understand 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   2Srd.  483 

you,  or  you  argue  about  an  impossible  thing.  ...  I  could  not  at  this  time  com- 
prehend your  words  otherwise.  .  .  .  May  the  Lord  soon  transform  you  into  such 
persons  who  will  return.     The  grace  of  God  be  with  you  all.     Amen. 

The  3rd  of  August,  1530. 

Martin  Luther. 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

MS.  in  Rhedig.  Brief,  in  Breslau  ;  Cod.  Jen.  b,  fol.  76. 
Cblest.,  II,  ^93. 

Augjist  4th. 

Perhaps  I  am  so  distracted  through  other  thoughts  that  I  do  not  properly  com- 
prehend yours.  I  am  astonished  why  you  should  inquire  after  such  matters  as 
though  you  did  not  know  them,  while  I  nevertheless  know  that  you  most  thor- 
oughly understand  everything  pertaining  to  our  cause.  ...  So  that  among  ours 
at  Augsburg,  viz.,  Philippus  and  Jonas  and  the  whole  society  (Collegium),  there 
are  great  disturbances. 


THE    CONFUTATIOX    READ. 

But  before  Melanchtlion  Avas  fully  informed,  it  seems,  as 
to  the  acerbity  of  the  situation  from  a  political  point  of 
view  in  the  Diet,  on  this  6th  day  of  August  he  sat  down  and 
wrote  the  following  account  of  events  to  Luther : — 

Melanchthon  to  Luther. 

Cblest.,  Ill,  25  ;  Chytr.,  216  (Ger.),  317. 

August  6th. 

\.  At  last,  on  August  3rd,  we  heard  the  Confutation,  together  with  the  Empe- 
ror's Declaration,  which  was  quite  severe.  For  before  the  reading  of  the  Confuta- 
tion, the  Emperor  had  said  he  wished  to  continue  in  his  recorded  Opinion,  and 
desired  that  our  princes  would  unitedly  reconcile  themselves  with  him  therein.  If 
not,  then  he,  as  a  Protector  of  the  Church,  would  no  longer  suffer  such  a  division 
in  Germany. 

2.  This  is  the  summary  of  the  address.  While  this  sounded  very  severe,  yet 
we  were  all  verj'  happy  after  the  reading  of  the  Confutation.  For  it  is  childish 
and  silly.  Concerning  the  two  kinds,  Faber  applies  the  history  of  the  sons  of  Eli, 
that  they  asked  of  the  priest  a  little  bread,  and  shows  from  it  that  the  laity  shall 
receive  only  the  form  of  bread.  The  Mass  is  justified  in  a  particularly  lame  and 
deceitful  manner. 

When  Joachim  returned  after  the  reading  of  the  Confutation  (for  I  was  not 
there),  he  said,  It  is  a  great  mistake  that  I  concern  myself  so  much  about  the  dif- 


484         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ferent  arguments  as  to  human  Tradition.      For  such  thoughts  never  entered  into 
their  head. 

3.  Our  party  requested  a  copy  of  the  Confutation,  but  the  imperial  Majesty 
took  it  under  advisement,  and  on  the  following  day  again  admonished  our  princes 
that  they  unite  and  reconcile  themselves  with  him  on  the  basis  of  this  document. 

His  imperial  Majesty  is  willing  to  permit  the  writing  to  be  delivered  to  them, 
but  on  condition  that  it  be  not  printed  nor  copied.  Alout  this  there  was  much 
debate,  until  finally  the  archbishop  of  Maintz,  and  his  brother,  the  elector  of 
Brandenburg,  and  the  duke  of  Brunswick  coincided  with  our  princes,  and  requested 
that  they  should  not  any  further  insist  on  their  position,  so  that  the  imperial  Ma- 
jesty might  not  be  more  intensely  moved.  They  desired  to  think  out  more  agree- 
able means  and  ways,  how  the  whole  matter  might  be  considered  and  conducted 
in  a  friendly  manner.  Thus  we  could  not  yet  see  the  Confutation,  and  to-day 
shall  be  present  (to  learn)  what  means  the  princes  will  propose.  Here  you  have 
all  our  news. 

4.  All  good  and  considerate  persons  are  now  much  more  hearty  and  friendly, 
since  they  have  heard  the  childishly  framed  Confutation.  [Melanchthon  did  not 
yet  realize  that  the  intervention  of  the  German  princes  at  this  moment  had  brought 
back  better  feeling.  He  apparently  had  heard  the  account  of  only  one  informant, 
like  himself  interested  chiefly  in  the  Confutation.]  Our  princes  could  more 
easily  attain  peace,  if  they  would  assiduously  approach  and  faithfully 
petition  the  Emperor  himself  and  certain  sensible  princes  in  the  tnatter; 
but  they  are  entirely  negligent  in  this  and,  as  things  appear  to  me,  it 
inwardly  angers  me  that  they  do  not  do  this. 

The  whole  matter  stands  in  (lod's  will,  and  will  not  be  governed  through 
human  flesh.  Meanwhile  /  becotne  impatient  about  our  negligence ;  I  think 
that  God  withholds  from  us  this  human  help  so  that  we  will  not  confide  in  our- 
selves. Hence  you  will  diligently  pray  that  God  may  sustain  and  protect  and 
grant  us  universal  peace  :  The  Landgrave  keeps  himself  under  perfect 
control.  He  explicitly  told  me  that  he  too  would,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  accept 
very  burdensome  conditions,  in  so  far  only  as  they  can  be  borne  without  any  re- 
proach and  disadvantage  to  the  Gospel. 

Herewith  commended  to  God.     The  6th  of  August,  1530. 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

Jen.  MS. 

Colest.,  III.  28  b ;  De  Wette,  IV,  133. 

August  15th. 

I  praise  God,  who  has  permitted  the  Confutation  of  the  opponents  to  take  such 
a  stupid  course.  Now  then,  for  a  strong  pull  through  to  the  end  !  Having  read 
Eisleben's  letter,  which  treats  of  disturbances  and  devils,  I  had  been  fearing  that 
dreadful  things  would  happen.  Martin  Luther. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  485 

August  Gth. 

THE   LUTHERANS^  DARKEST   HOUR. 

On  August  Gth,  as  Melanclitlion  narrates  just  above,  the 
Liitherans  were  oifered  a  copy  of  the  Confutation  on  con- 
dition that  they  agree  with  the  Eiii])eror,  and  refrain  from 
printing  the  document.  They  declined  the  offer.  The  re- 
fusal of  the  Lutherans  to  receive  the  Confutation  on  the  im- 
perial terms,  their  ap])eal  to  (Jod  and  to  his  ]\rajesty  "* 
brought  on  a  scene  of  excitement  and  confusion.  The 
Komanist  Princes,  especially  George  of  Saxony,  declared 
that  this  reply  was  rebellion,  an<l  it  seemed  for  a  time  as  if 
war  would  begin  on  the  very  floor  of  the  Diet.'"  The  Papal 
Legate,  spurred  on  by  tidings  he  had  received  from  Rome, 
urged  Charles  to  seize  tire  and  sword  and  take  possession  of 
the  property  of  the  heretics,  and  put  the  heretical  L^niversity 
of  Wittenberg  under  the  ban." 

The  Lutheran  party  held  their  peace,  though  filled  with 
indignation."  Melanchthon,  in  great  fear,  fell  back  on 
Luther's  prayers. 

P>ut  Luther  himself  was  full  of  faith  and  courage. 
Already  on  August  5th  he  had  written  his  famous  letter  con- 
cerning the  two  miracles  he  saw  at  his  window,  the  one 
of  the  stars  in  the  magnificent  firmament  whose  immense 
vault  the  Lord  supported  by  his  power,  and  yet  the  heavens 
did  not  fall ;  and  the  other  of  the  sreat  cloud  hanoninc:  over 
our  heads,  which  was  not  suspended  by  cords,  and  yet  did 
not  collapse.  He  wrote  to  Augsburg :  "  God  will  choose  the 
way  and  the  time  of  deliverance,  and  He  will  not  tarry. 
What  the  men  of  blood  have  commenced,  they  cannot  finish. 
Our  rainbow  is  very  faint,  and  their  clouds  are  very  threat- 


"  Forst.,    Vrk.,    II,    181  :       "  Dass    sie    es    gott    und    S.    majestat    befehlen 
musten." 

"76.,  C.  R.,  II,   254. 

"  Instructio    data    Caesarl    a    reverendissimo    Campeggi    in    dieta    Augustana, 
1530. 

«C.  R.,  II,  254. 


486        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ening,  but  ours  will  be  the  victoi-y.  No  matter  if  Luther 
perishes,  Christ  will  be  the  conqueror.  And  then  Luther  will 
also  be  conqueror."  " 

It  is  said  that  when  at  the  meeting  the  Emperor  called 
upon  the  Protestants  to  submit  to  the  Confutation,  and  then 
looked  knowingly  at  his  sword,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  took 
him  up  at  his  own  meaning  and  replied,  "  The  straight  line 
is  the  shortest  road."  It  might  surely  have  been  war,  if  the 
archbishop  of  Maintz,  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  and  other 
German  Catholic  Princes,  who  knew  the  strength  of  the 
Protestants  and  were  fearful  of  an  invasion  of  their  own 
dominions,  or  who  sympathized  with  them  in  their  position, 
had  not  intervened  and  offered  themselves  to  the  Lutherans 
to  mediate  their  cause.  The  Elector  declared  that  it  was 
not  the  Emperor  with  whom  the  Lutheran  quarrel  lay. 
They  had  come  in  response  to  his  Call,  and  they  were  ready 
to  have  unity  of  faith  restored  on  the  basis  of  that  Call." 
This  was  the  position  the  Lutherans  had  taken  all  along,  and 
with  this  in  view  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  framed,  viz., 
the  possibility  of  a  purification  of  the  old  church  in  doc- 
trine and  abuses ;  but  not  a  unification  at  the  expense  of  any 
point  of  the  Gospel  doctrine. 

The  Emperor  accepted  the  offer  of  these  Princes,  and 
consequently  sixteen  German  Catholics  were  appointed  as 
mediators  between  the  Romanists  and  the  Protestants.  This 
was  still  the  morning  of  August  6tli,  and  the  mediators  met 
immediately.  The  morning  they  spent  in  internal  strug- 
gles and  disputes,  the  bishop  of  Augsburg  speaking  in  favor 
of  the  Lutherans,  and  the  archbishop  of  Salsburg  against 
them.  These  Catholic  Princes  met  in  the  afternoon  again, 
but  instead  of  mediating  between  others,  almost  came  to 
blows  "  among  themselves. 


«  MS.  In  Cod.  Jen.  b.  fol.  306.     Chytr.,  96  b ;  Erl.,  54  :  183 ;  Colest.,  II,  275. 

"  C.  R.,  II,  254. 

"Chytr.,   Ger.    215;    Saliy,   I,   277. 


JUNE   2  5th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  487 

HEROISM  OF  THE  LUTHERAN   REFUSAL. 

This  refusal  of  the  Lutherans  to  accept  the  Confutation 
and  return  to  the  Ivoman  Church  was  one  of  the  boldest  of 
the  many  perilous  acts  of  these  heroes  on  behalf  of  their 
Faith.  Up  to  now,  Melanchthon  (who  from  the  very  start 
was  averse  to  a  frank  and  oi)en  Confession,  and  who  seemed 
as  one  possessed  with  the  demon  of  negotiation  and  com- 
promise rather  than  witli  the  spirit  of  Confession)  alone 
excepted,  all  the  princes  and  theologians  had  stood  squarely 
on  the  Confession,  deliberately  preferring  to  take  the  con- 
sequences of  excommunication  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
loss  of  position,  loss  of  proi)erty,  loss  of  life,  and  open  war 
itself,  rather  than  yield  one  point  of  the  pure  doctrine. 
They  stood  for  their  rights  under  the  Call,  and  they  liad  hope 
in  the  Emperor  as  one  who  felt  the  power  of  the  truth. 

To  paint  them, — even  in  the  darkest  days  of  this  dark 
month  of  August,  when  under  the  fearful,  if  not  perfidious, 
leadership  of  llelanehtlion,  they  came  near  making  ship- 
wreck of  the  whole  cause  for  which  they  had  sacrificed  so 
much, — as  willing  to  secure  peace  at  any  price,  as  being 
unable  to  endure  the  idea  of  parting  from  the  lioman  Church, 
or  to  go  to  the  still  more  untruthful  extreme  of  intimating 
that  they  were  worried  by  the  fear  that  there  was  "  no  sal- 
vation for  them  outside  of  the  Roman  Church,"  is  not  only 
a  perversion  of  the  facts,  but  is  an  injustice  to  men  who  were 
literally  giving  their  life  for  the  cause. 

Of  the  Lutheran  part  of  the  Committee  that  subsequently 
brought  the  doctrine  into  compromise,  the  old  Margrave, 
who  had  offered  his  head  at  the  block  eight  weeks  earlier 
rather  than  give  up  his  faith  ;  the  timid  Heller ;  with  Schnepf, 
the  theologian  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  and  a  sound  man;  Brentz 
and  ^lelanchthon,  were  members.  We  believe  it  can  be 
sho^vn  that  the  plan,  the  method,  the  stubborn  insistence 
on  compromise,  and  the  results,  were,  under  the  manipulation 
of  Rome,  those  of  Melanchthon;  and  that  of  all  the  party — 


488         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  Elector,  Brlick,  Schnepf,  the  Margrave  and  the  Nu- 
rembergers, — he  was  the  only  one  who  was  really  willing  to 
wreck  any  part  of  the  doctrine  of  Luther  for  the  sake  of 
remaining  with  Rome.  And  he  had  even  tried  to  justify 
the  compromise  to  his  owti  conscience.  As  he  made  Luther 
weary  by  the  constant  proposal  of  Roman  approximations, 
which  were  not  however  put  squarely,  in  the  actual  his- 
torical form  in  which  he  intended  to  avail  himself  of  them, 
so  by  dint  of  persistent  dictation  and  assumption  of  authority 
he  brought  down  the  situation  here,  as  he  did  years  later 
in  the  Leipzig  Interim,  to  a  surrender  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  the  great  Article  of  the  standing  or  falling  church. 
For  anyone,  in  face  of  the  persistent  evidence  of  the  con- 
stant leaven  of  the  Melanchthonian  principle  of  compromise 
of  doctrine  before  the  Confession,  after  the  Confession,  in 
the  Variata,  and  during  the  whole  generation  of  Melanch- 
thon's  leadership,  to  say  that  this  was  the  position  of  Lu- 
ther, or  of  the  Elector,  or  of  Briick,  or  of  the  Electoral  party 
at  Augsburg,  or  to  represent  these  men  as  being  willing  to 
secure  peace  from  Rome  at  any  price,  is  to  cover  the  shame 
and  to  attribute  the  principles  and  motives  of  one  union- 
istic  Lutheran  to  men  who  all  their  life  stood  firm  against 
union  of  any  character  at  the  expense  of  doctrine.  If  any 
one  thing  is  revealed  clearly  in  Melanchthon's  correspond- 
ence, it  is  that  he  finds  little  sympathy  (outside  of  Jonas), 
in  the  Electoral  party  for  his  views  and  plans." 

August  7th. 

A   DAY    OF    SENSATION    FOR    BOTH    SIDES. 

The  Lutheran  Princes  were  still  asleep  the  next  morning 


*"  To  cite  only  two  instances  :  Mel.  to  Luther,  July  27tli :  "  Those  who  are 
here  help  me  little  ;  "  Aug.  6th,  Mel.  to  Luther  :  "  Our  princes  could  secure 
peace  much  more  readily,  ...  if  they  diligently  begged  for  it ;  but  they  are 
altogether  (neglectful  as  to  this,  and  as  it  looks  to  me,  secretly  irritated,  so 
that  they  do  not  undertake  this."  Here  we  have  Melanchthon's  own  testimony 
not  only  to  the  fact  that  the  princes  are  of  little  help  to  him  and  out  of  sym- 
pathy with  his  plans  ;  but  that,  while  he  is  eager  for  peace,  the  princes  are 
apathetic.  What  further  proof  is  needed  as  to  the  difference  in  attitude  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Electoral  party  ! 


JUNE   25th— SEPTEMBER    2Srd.  489 

when  they  were  ordered  to  come  immediately  to  the  chap- 
ter halh"  They  arrived  at  eight  o'clock.  The  mediators 
appointed  on  August  6th  met  with  them  and  demanded  that 
they  give  up  their  false  doctrine,  and  come  back  to  the 
bosom  of  the  church.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  asked  for  time. 
Then  Joachim  turned  upon  him  savagely  and  said  that  un- 
less he  gave  up  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  the  Emperor  would 
use  force  against  him  and  subjugate  him,  deposing  him  from 
his  position,  despoiling  his  possessions,  laying  waste  his 
country,  and  taking  away  his  life,  and  would  force  his 
subjects  back  to  the  old  faith.  Turning  toward  the  Elector, 
he  said :  "All  will  be  torn  from  you,  swift  ruin  will  de- 
scend upon  your  subjects,  and  even  upon  their  wives  and 
children." 

The  Elector  showed  no  sign  of  movement.  His  friends 
now  saw  why  it  was  that  the  guards  of  the  Emperor  occu- 
pied the  gates  of  the  city:"  the  Emperor  intended  violence." 
The  Elector  was  stunned  as  by  a  thunder-bolt,  and  returned 
home  in  distress.^"  Those  historians  who  fail  to  present 
the  whole  truth,  and  make  it  appear  that  this  distress  was  a 
sign  of  yielding,  are  not  to  be  trusted.  However  terrifying 
the  threats,  the  Elector  and  his  party  stood  firm,  and  did 
not  recede  one  step.  "  Sed  hae  minae  nihil  commoverunt : 
perstant  in  sententia,  nee  vel  tantillum  recedunt." "  On 
that  same  afternoon  Briick  prepared  a  firm  answer  to  these 
dreadful  demands.  This  answer  stated  that  the  Lutherans 
could  not  yield  to  the  proposals  made  by  the  Catholic  com- 
missioners, that  their  side  had  not  been  properly  heard,  as 
the  Emperor  had  promised  it  would  be  in  the  Call,  that 
they  had  not  received  a  copy  of  the  Confutation,  and  that 


"  C.  R.,  II,   254  ;   Bruck,  Apol.,  t.   79. 

*^Ib.,   277. 

«/b. 

^Colest.,  Ill,  26b. 

"  C.  R.,  II,   277. 


41)0         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the   Emperor   had   promised   to   call    a   national   Coimcil   to 
take  up  these  matters/'' 

Bnt  it  proved  to  be  not  necessary  to  read  their  answer  that 
day  in  the  Diet.  A  tremendous  sensation  had  occurred. 
The  evening  before,  on  August  6th,  at  eight  o'clock,  Philip 
of  Hesse  had  succeeded  in  leaving  Augsburg  in  disguise, 
and  in  escaping  to  his  dominions.  He  had  said,  "  I  shall 
fight  for  the  Word  of  God,  at  the  risk  of  my  goods,  my 
estates,  my  subjects,  and  my  life."  The  news  travelled 
through  the  city  like  the  report  of  a  volcano.  The  Em- 
peror was  shaken  to  the  bottom  of  his  heart.'''  The  Elector 
and  his  firm  but  down-hearted  band  of  heroes  were  as  much 
astonished  as  the  Eomanists  themselves.  Luther,  as  soon 
as  he  heard  it,  highly  approved  of  the  Landgrave's  departure, 
and  exclaimed,  '*  Such  delay  and  indignity  are  enough  to  tire 
more  than  one  Landgrave." 


August  Sth  to  15th. 

THE   ROMANISTS   CONCILIATE   AND   ASK   FOK   A    COMMISSION. 

The  effect  on  the  Diet  of  the  Landgrave's  departure  was 
instantaneous.  The  German  Catholic  Princes  thought 
they  already  saw  him  at  the  head  of  an  army  and  feared  lest 
their  territories  would  immediately  be  invaded  by  the  bold 
knight.  All  thrcatenings  in  the  Diet  against  the  Luther- 
ans ceased,  and  they  were  treated  with  respect.  As  the  cry 
had  a  day  ago  been  violence  and  war,  it  now  was  compromise 
and  peace.  So  great  was  the  reaction,  so  full  of  anxiety  was 
the  Emperor,  so  meek  was  the  Papal  party,  that,  though 
Briick  had  handed  in  his  defiant  answer,  subscribed  by 
eight  Princes  and  six  cities  on  the  9th  of  August,  and  the 
Elector  Joachim  had  replied  to  it  as  the  spokesman  of  the 


0=  C.  R.,  II,  266  ;  Chytr.,  Lat.,  221. 
i^Seck.,  II,  172. 


JUNE   2r,lh  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  401 

Catholic  commisson  on  the  lltli  of  August,"  when,  on  the 
13th  of  August,  the  Protestant  Princes  made  their  counter 
reply, — and  declared  that  they  were  willing  to  go  as  far  as 
teas  consistent  ivith  God's  ^Yord,  and  to  unite  with  others 
so  far  as  their  consciences  would  permit,  if  the  method 
originally  proposed  hy  the  Emperor  in  the  Call  were  fol- 
lowed, and  a  small  nund^er  of  commissioners  were  chosen 
(not  from  the  Catholic  side  exclusively  as  had  been  done 
but)  from  both  sides,  who  would  consider  the  articles  in  dis- 
pute and  endeaver  to  bring  about  an  agreement,  as  the  Call 
intended, — the  Romanists  were  only  too  glad  to  adopt  the 
method  originally  proposed  by  the  emperor,  and,  wonder  of 
wonders !  to  make  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself  the  basis 
of  consideration/' 

On  the  next  day,  the  Emperor  appointed  a  commission  of 
an  equal  number  of  representatives  from  both  sides.  The 
reader  should  note  that  all  three  of  the  theologians  repre- 
senting the  Catholic  side  were  the  most  bitter  and  venom- 
ous enemies  of  the  Lutherans,  viz.,  John  Eck,  Conrad  Wim- 
pina  and  John  Cochlaeus.  He  will  also  see,  if  he  studies 
the  situation,  that  the  Romanists  suddenly  became  wolves  in 
sheep's  clothing,  that  the  commission  would  proceed  on  its 
downward  path  under  the  leadership  of  Eck  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  still  once  again  miserably  deceived  Melanch- 
thon  on  the  Protestant  side.  He  will  see  too  that  the  pro- 
testant  theologians  were  not  our  leaders  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  word.  Eck  knew  in  advance  that  Melanchthon  could  be 
gained  over  to  the  Roman  side,  and  knew  that  the  Princes 
did  not  sjTnpathize  '  with  Melanchthon  on  this  point ;  and; 
therefore,  he  said  as  early  as  the  14th  of  August  that,  "  They 
did  not  want  any  Princes  on  the  commission ;  for  the  Princes 


"Even  Joachim  had  wound  up  his  reply  by  saying  that  "for  the  present  it 
would  be  wiser  to  propose  means  and  ways  for  concord !  "  " 

"  Chytr.,  222  sqq. 

"For  this  counter  reply  of  the  Protestants,  see  Chytr.,   (Ger.)    130,    (Lat.) 
225;  Salig,  I,   282-284, 


403         TEE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

are  self-coneeited  fools."  "     The  Lutheraus  were  appointed 
by  the  Emperor. 

Already  on  Angnst  15th  the  Lutheran  theologians  had 
presented  to  their  Princes  an  Opinion  on  the  subject  of 
"  concord,"  which  reproduces,  word  for  word,  and  almost 
clause  for  clause,  the  favorite  thought  of  Melanchthon;  and 
in  which  he  has  evidently  embraced  the  opportunity  to  chas- 
tise and  warn  the  Princes  against  supposed  apathy  toward 
war.  In  this  Opinion,  in  which  Melanchthon  tries  to  train 
and  school  the  more  sturdy  princes  to  his  own  more  timid 
views,  as  being  those  of  the  Word  of  God,  by  arguments 
which  he  has  been  attempting  also  to  force  upon  Luther  in  his 
correspondence  with  him,  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  of  all 
the  Melanchthonian  statements  is  this:  "Therefore  we  most 
humbly  beg  the  princes,  for  the  sake  of  God  and  for  their 
own  good,  to  try  to  make  peace,  and  to  see  to  it,  that  if  the 
enemy  should  become  too  severe,  our  consciences  should 
become  more  easy,"  Thus  does  the  unionistic  theologian 
graduate  his  conscience,  not  according  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Word  of  God,  but  inversely  according  to  the  severity  of  the 
enmity.  ISTo  wonder  that  pure  Lutheran  doctrine  was  in 
danger  of  being  sacrificed  under  a  theologian  animated  by 
this  principle.^ 

August  16th. 

GREAT   CONCESSIONS  PROPOSED. 

On  August  IGth  the  commission  consisting  of  two  princes, 
two  lawyers,  and  two  theologians  from  each  side  went  to 
work.  The  Protestant  theologians  were  Melanchthon,  Brentz, 
and  Schnepf.  The  Evangelical  Confession  was  taken  as  the 
basis  of  discussion.  Of  the  twenty-one  articles,  the  Roman- 
ists finally  objected  only  to  penance,  invocation  of  saints,  and 
justification  by  faith.     Pome  could  not  yield  on  this  latter 


"  C.  R.,  II,  279. 

5»  Ih.,   281   sqq.  ;    Chytr.,  Lat.,    236   sqq. 


JUNE   2 5 Ih— SEPTEMBER    2Srd.  493 

])(>iiit:  it  inusi  maintain  the  nicritorious  inflnence  of  works. 
As  to  government,  ordinances,  and  abuses,  the  Protestants,  on 
their  part,  went  so  far  in  their  concessions  as  to  agree  to  re- 
store the  bishops,  and  even  to  agree  to  acknowledge  the  Pope," 
while  the  Romanists  yielded  the  marriage  of  priests  nntil 
the  next  Council.  But  Brentz  wrote,  "  we  cannot  acknowl- 
edge the  Po})e,  because  we  say  he  is  Antichrist " ; '"  and,  two 
days  later,  when  tlie  otliers  seemed  on  the  point  of  yielding, 
Briick  wrote  on  the  margin  of  the  document,  "  We  cannot 
acknowledge  tlie  Pope  because  we  say  he  is  Antichrist,  and 
because  he  claims  primacy  by  divine  right." "  We  have 
reason  to  believe  that  of  the  six  Protestant  commissioners, 
Briick,  Brentz  and  Schnepf  protested  and  were  unwilling. 
Melanchtlion  was  able  to  manage  the  brave  old  Margrave 
and  the  timid  Heller.  The  committee  not  only  agreed  to 
go  back  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  and  the  bishops,  but 
also  to  return  to  tlie  Boman  customs  and  ceremonies.  Ilow 
astonishing  it  is  tliat  sixteen  years  later,  as  soon  as  Luther 
was  dead,  ^lelanchthon  again  put  the  Church  into  this  very 
position  ;  though  meantime  he  had  been  veering  and  temporiz- 
ing toward  the  Reformed  position. 

On  August  the  18th,  the  commissioners  issued  an  "  Ex- 
planation "  of  the  articles  to  which  both  commissions  had 
agreed.  This  "  Explanation "  raised  a  storm  outside  the 
committee.  The  lay  Protestants  were  disgusted  with  the  the- 
ologians. We  are  told  that  all  Augsburg  ^'  declared,  ''  It 
is  better  to  die  with  Christ,  than  to  gain  the  favor  of  the 
whole  world  without  Him." 


^' All  this  was  in  accordance  with  Melanchthon's  program  of  concession,  niado 
before  even  he  knew  there  would  be  an  opportunity  to  concede.  This  put  his 
informal  concessions  to  the  Legate  into  fixed  shape.  He  had  been  preparing 
for  it  i.n  the  correspondence  on  Ordinances  of  which  Luther  grew  weary,  and 
Luther  had  been  unable  to  shake  him  in  this  purpose.  The  discussion  in  the 
Commission  on  the  Protestant  side  proves  all  this.  Thus,  they  said,  "  Al- 
though the  pope  is  Anti-Christ,  we  may  be  under  his  government,  as  the  Jews 
were  under  Pharaoh,  and  in  later  days  under  Caiaphas."  "  Only,"  said  the 
Lutheran  theologians,  "  let  sound  doctrine  be  fully  accorded  to  us." 

^oPorst..  Vrk.,  11,  249. 

«7bid.,  247. 


•»  "  Die  ganze  Stadt  sagt." — C.  R.,  II,   297. 

35 


494         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

It  was  indeed  a  great  Melanclithonian  treachery,  in  which 
Melanchthon  had  involved  his  commission.  The  theolo- 
gians with  him  were  Heller,  Brentz,  and  Schnepf.  Schnepf, 
according  to  certain  acconnts,  seems  to  have  remained  stead- 
fast, and  Brentz  seems  to  have  become  confused. 

To  make  these  men  the  representatives  of  the  whole  Lu- 
theran party  at  Augsburg,  is  not  to  write  history.  They 
had  been  appointed  by  the  Emperor:  they  had  been  dic- 
tated to  by  ]\relanchthon.  His  fear  of  war,  his  desire  nol 
to  break  with  Rome,  his  lack  of  faitli,  his  respect  for  worldly 
power,  and  all  the  worse  sides  of  his  mental  character  en- 
tered in  as  the  controlling  element.  In  the  article  on  the 
Lord's  Supper, — just  as  later  on,  he  had  in  his  '  Loci '  and 
in  the  '  Variata '  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  used  ambig- 
uous language, — he  was  now  using  ambiguous  language 
to  cover  both  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  sacrament. 

For  any  historian  to  conclude,  after  all  that  Luther  had 
been  writing  since  1527  on  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  after 
the  severe  examination  of  the  doctrine  of  the  mass  during 
the  struggles  of  the  Sacramentarians,  that  the  Lutherans 
themselves  at  this  time  maintained  a  view  of  the  sacrament 
which  could  be  harmonized  with  the  Roman  teaching  of 
transubstantiation,  is  an  insult  to  the  early  reformers.  Me- 
lanchthon understood  Eck's  meaning  in  the  statement  which 
he  here  accepted,  but  he,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  with 
that  inability  to  appreciate  tlie  immutableness  of  the  teaching 
of  the  Word  of  God,  was  willing  to  gloss  over  a  fundamental 
difference  in  this  doctrine  with  Rome,  just  as  he  afterwards 
was  willing  to  gloss  it  over  in  connection  with  the  teaching  of 
Bucer  and  Calvin.  There  was  the  same  inconsistency  on  his 
part  as  to  Protestant  concession  in  the  doctrine  of  Private 
Confession. 

Eck  had  managed  things  so  wonderfully  that  he  had  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  from  Melanchthon  almost  every  point 
vital  to  the  Romanists.     As  to  justification,  Cochlaeus  re- 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  495 

ported  thus :  "  The  Lutherans  of  their  own  accord  gave  up 
and  renounced  this  word  Sola,  and  no  longer  said  that  we 
are  justified  by  faith  alone.  Hence,  a  short  statement  of 
Concord  was  at  once  drawn  up  in  the  briefest  possible  form 
of  words,  and,  unless  my  memory  fails  me,  it  was  written 
by  Philip  himself,  namely,  that  justification  or  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  takes  place  "  per  gratiam  gratum  facientem  et 
fidem  formaliter,  per  verbum  vero  et  sacramentum  instru- 
mentaliter,"  '' 

But  great  bomb-shells,  as  we  shall  see,  were  soon  dropped, 
by  Luther,  into  this  beautiful  peace,  mediated  by  Melanch- 
tbonian  treachery. 

MELANCIITirON    AND    HIS    COMPROMISE. 

That  Melanchthon  has  been  recognized  in  history  as  re- 
sponsible for  thus  attempting  to  strangle  the  Lutheran 
Church,  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  this  Commission 
given  by  even  such  a  mild,  tolerant,  pietistic,  and  moderate 
historian  as  Salig"  will  show.  Salig  excuses  himself  at  the 
start  by  saying,  ''  Whether  Melanchthon  was  to  blame  or 
not,  I  shall  not  say  at  this  time.  Luther  at  least  praised  his 
transactions  and  freed  him  from  blame."  He  then  tells  the 
following  story,  put  together  from  Vita  Phil.  Mel.,  Coe- 
lestin,  Chytrseus,  Mueller,  Sleidanus  and  other  early  his- 
torians : — 

''At  that  time  Melanchthon  was  under  very  great  pres- 
sure and  subject  to  many  criticisms  from  his  party.  Came- 
rarius  reports  that  frequently  he  saw  Melanchthon  sobbing 
and  crying,'*  and  had  heard  many  complaints.  The  causes 
of  the  adverse  remarks  were  chiefly  these : — 

"  (1)  That  in  all  things  he  caused  himself  to  appear  too 
mild  and  fearful. 


**  Plitt,  Apologie  der  Augustana,  p.  49. 
'*  Salig,  I,  318. 

"  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Camerarius  :     "  Not  a  day  passes  in  which  I  do  not 
wish  that  I  might  leave  this  world." 


496         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

"  (2)  That  he  wrote  letters  that  were  too  humble,  to  the 
cardinals,  the  legates,  and  other  bishops,  such  as  Liiettlich,  and 
Angsbiirg,  and  to  the  Venetian  orator,  N'icholas  Teupohis.*" '^ 
That  his  letters  were  now  being  carried  around  in  print  at 
Augsburg  to  the  greatest  shame  and  reproach  of  Melanch- 
thon,  which  were  not  a  little  increased  by  a  letter  of  Luther 
in  which  this  softness  of  Melanchthon  was  chastised  in 
caustic  words. 

"  (3)  That  he  would  have  been  glad  to  give  back  their 
jurisdiction  into  the  hands  of  the  papal  bishops,  and  there- 
fore had  yielded  more  than  could  properly  be  done  without 
injury  to  the  Confession,  although  he  had  at  the  same  time 
laid  down  the  condition  that  the  bishops  should  leave  the 
pure  Gospel  free.  Yes,  one  of  the  Evangelicals  went  so 
far  as  to  speak  these  hard  words  of  Melanchthon:  If  Mel- 
anchthon had  been  hired  at  the  price  of  a  great  sum  of  money 
by  the  Papists,  to  defend  their  cause,  he  could  not  have  gone 
about  it  in  a  better  way.  Melanchthon  was  to  be  held,  not 
as  a  patron  of  the  Evangelicals,  but  of  the  Papists. 

"Melanchthon  complained  to  Camerarius,  that  many  Evan- 
gelical representatives  w^ere  angry  at  him  on  this  account, 
and  that  others  had  charged  him  of  these  things  in  bitter 
words.  Luther  wrote,"  September  2nd:  It  is  not  possible 
to  say  how  much  he  was  hated  by  the  ISTurembergers,  because 
he  had  again  yielded  the  power  to  the  bishops. 

^'  (4)  Eor  the  Nuremberg  Theologians  had  diligently  re- 
ported the  opinions  and  actions  of  Melanchthon  back  home. 
The  Council  at  Nuremberg  passed  a  special  resolution  with 
respect  to  the  inconceivable  reply  of  the  Protestants. 

"  The  instrument  drawn  up  seemed  to  have  yielded  very 
much,  and  to  have  given  into  the  hands  of  the  Papists  that 
which  was  either  injurious  to  the  conscience,  which  could 
not  be  maintained  with  Scripture,  or  burdensome  and  offen- 
sive to  those  who  up  to  now  had  confessed  Christ  and  his 
Gospel. 


«*  Colestin,   III,  63.      ''5^  Not  a  Letter,  but  a  Conversation,  r.  p.  216. 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  497 

"  (1.)  In  the  first  place,  it  would  be  a  great  disadvantage 
to  the  Christian  authorities  to  be  obliged  after  all  to  allow 
all  Monks  and  Xuns  and  their  cloisters  with  all  their  man- 
ners and  ceremonies  to  continue  peacefully  in  the  old 
lines.  .  .  . 

"  (2.)  In  the  second  place,  it  would  not  be  well  to  admit 
to  the  Papists  that  there  are  three  parts  in  repentance. 

"  (3.)  In  the  third  place,  to  say  that  the  Sacrament  should 
be  administered  to  none  without  previous  auricular  Confes- 
sion would  not  only  lead  to  much  misunderstanding  of  the 
matter,  but  would  also  be  dangerous.  .  .  . 

*'  (4.)  The  article  of  fasting  and  the  eating  of  meats  had 
been  so  composed  as  to  give  up  Christian  liberty  under  the 
appearance  of  peaceful  unity  and  uniformity. 

"  (5.)  The  intercession  of  the  saints  or  of  angels  in 
Heaven  is  not  to  be  proven  out  of  the  Scripture. 

"  (6.)  The  quickest  way  to  suppress  and  extirpate  the 
Gospel  was  to  give  the  bishops  spiritual  jurisdiction  to  a 
much  greater  extent  tlian  they  up  to  this  time  had  dared  to 
ask  for,  and  than  they  actually  had  formerly  possessed. 

''  (7.)  Further,  it  was  a  crafty  stroke  by  which  the  Pa- 
pists had  postponed  all  the  other  articles  which  had  not  been 
discussed,  to  a  future  Council,  and  wished  that  this  single 
one  alone,  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops,  should  be  at 
once  thus  accepted.  They  had  reached  a  path  and  a  method 
by  which  they  would  soon  be  able  to  become  masters  of  the 
Gospel  and  of  those  who  proclaimed  it. 

"  If  such  articles  were  now  accepted,  tlie  Christian  Es- 
tates could  not  be  acquitted  of  acting  against  the  Scriptures. 
Although  one  would  do  much  for  the  sake  of  peace,  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  not  to  bring  about  war  in  the  heart  and 
conscience,  to  do  right  as  a  Christian,  and  commit  the  seri- 
ous question  of  peace  or  war  to  God. 

"  Further,  if  the  articles  referred  to  should  be  adopted, 
and  Luther  and  other  preachers  should  preach,  teach,  and 
write  against  them,   and  they  could   not  do  otherwise,   one 


498        THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

should  stop  to  consider  what  sort  of  a  peace  had  been  at- 
tained by  such  yielding  up  of  the  cause. 

"  In  earlier  days,  the  Christian  Estates  had  proven  them- 
selves so  brave  and  steadfast,  and  now,  without  necessity, 
they  yielded  as  much  as  they  could.  .  .  .  Moreover,  in  such 
important  affairs,  one  must  not  act  in  a  perplexed  and  un- 
certain way,  but  must  place  everything  beyond  the  possibility 
of  being  disputed  and  doubted.  Xo  matter  how  it  now 
went  with  this  plan  of  mediation,  the  Christian  Estates 
would  awaken  the  suspicion  and  dislike  of  friend  and  foe, 
while  the  Papists  would  be  greatly  strengthened  in  their 
abuses,  and  would  shout  aloud  their  victory,  as  Cochlaeus 
had  already  written  to  IN^uremberg,  and  had  praised  the 
yielding  of  the  Evangelicals  to  the  highest  degree.  All  this 
was,  accordingly,  to  be  announced  by  the  Nuremberg  rep- 
resentative to  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

"  When  the  matter  reached  them  by  post,  they  were  said 
to  have  answered:  That  not  only  they,  but  their  Theologians, 
from  whom  they  had  secretly  taken  counsel,  had  found  all 
sorts  of  difficulty  in  some  of  the  methods  and  articles.  If 
the  same  had  been  sent  to  them  before  they  were  delivered 
to  the  Committee,  they  would  have  spoken  out  their  difficul- 
ties to  the  Elector  and  other  Princes  and  the  honorable 
Council.  Therefore,  they  regarded  the  transactions  of  the 
Committee  as  altogether  inconceivable  and  invalid,  and 
begged  that  the  Estates  would  allow  the  whole  matter  to  go 
to  Dr.  Luther,  and  would  deliberate  with  him,  so  that  noth- 
ing would  be  agreed  upon  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  Gospel, 
for  if  anything  final  should  bo  undertaken  without  his 
knowledge  and  will^  and  Luther  should  afterward  preach 
against  it,  the  matter  would  become  much  more  confused 
than  beforehand. 

"  If  it  should  be  a  difficult  matter  to  recall  the  points 
which  had  been  agreed  on,  the  Papists  could  nevertheless  not 
demand  acceptance  without  ratification,  just  as  they  them- 
selves would  not  accept  without  the  approval  of  the  Emperor 


JUNE   25ili  —  SEPTEMBEB    23rd.  499 

and  the  other  Estates,  anything  that  the  Evangelical  theolo- 
gians should  bring  to  a  final  conclusion  without  the  consent 
of  the  Estates. 

"  (8.)  All  this  was  the  consequence,  chiefly  of  the  mild 
propositions  and  the  wide  correspondence  of  Melanchthon, 
which  however  he  never  was  willing  to  admit.  But,  in 
order  to  understand  the  cause  and  the  occasion  of  this  N^u- 
remberg  opinion  more  fnlly,  we  shall  present  a  short  ex- 
tract from  Hieronymus  Baumgartner,  who  was  at  that  time 
present  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  and  who  wrote  to  Lazarus 
Spengler,  Secretary  of  the  Xuremberg  Council.  From  this 
correspondence  one  can  see  how  the  other  Theologians  were 
not  satisfied  with  the  mediators  at  the  Diet. 

"  '  In  the  first  letter,  Baumgartner  writes :  I  must  give  my 
opinion  of  the  action  of  this  Diet  in  matters  of  faith.  God 
grant  that  in  this  I  shall  not  become  a  true  ])rophet! 

"  '  First,  you  know  what  persistent  opposition  there  has 
been  against  us  in  past  transactions  first  by  this  and  then  by 
another  devil,  who  at  times  transformed  themselves  into 
angels  of  light.  Although  the  Bomanist  party  failed  to  at- 
tain its  desire,  and  the  measures  proposed  on  our  part  were 
accepted,  we  nevertheless  are  finding  out  that  even  now  the 
idea  is  to  place  their  measures  in  the  decree  at  once  as  hav- 
ing been  agreed  to. 

"  *  Even  if  such  an  extreme  should  not  happen,  the  Ro- 
manists have  never  entered  into  any  dealing  in  vain,  but 
they  always  forced  some  concession  from  us,  which  we  have 
been  obliged  to  grant.  This  yielding  they  always  hold  ready 
to  spring  upon  us  and,  at  sometime  when  it  is  least  desirable, 
they  will  use  it.  But  by  His  special  grace  God  has  ordained 
that  the  Confession  has  been  delivered  over  once  for  all  in 
full: — else  our  Theologians  would  have  confessed  another 
one  long  ago,  which  indeed  if  they  had  been  supported,  they 
w^ould  gladly  have  done,  although  they  are  not  all  of  the 
same  mind. 

^^  ^  Philip  has  become  more  childish  than  a  child.     Brentz 


500        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

is  not  otjly  unskillful,  hut  also  rough  and  coai'sc.  Heller 
is  full  of  fear,  and  these  three  have  caused  tlie  pious  Mar- 
grave to  be  quite  distracted  and  discouraged,  and  have  per- 
suaded him  to  do  what  they  desire,  although  I  perceive  thai 
he  would  gladly  do  right.  The  pious  Yogler  is  much  abused 
in  his  absence,  as  though,  if  he  were  still  here  [Baumgartner 
writes  from  Augsburg],  so  much  that  is  good  [in  their  eye] 
would  not  have  been  accomplished. 

''  '  The  Elector  in  this  business  Itas  no  one  more  sensible 
than  the  one  and  only  Dr.  Briick;  but  they  liave  brought  him 
to  the  point  where  he  now  also  grows  anxious  in  business, 
since  there  is  not  a  soul  to  give  him  any  support.  The  other 
Saxon  theologians  dare  not  speak  openly  against  Philip,  for 
he  has  gone  so  far  as  recently  to  assert  against  the  Liiueburg 
chancellor :  '  He  who  dares  to  say  that  the  remedies  last 
yielded  to  are  not  Christian,  lies  like  a  villain.  .  .  . 

" '  In  fine :  if  that  rough  and  ungracious  decree  of  his 
imperial  Majesty  had  not  soon  failed,  the  Romanists  would 
not  have  ceased  with  us  until  they  had  brought  us  into  the 
net.  So  greatly  have  we  needed  God's  protection,  and  have 
not  received  the  Emperor's:  for  this  affair  has  continued 
constantly  up  to  this  time. 

"  'As  often  as  the  princes  assemble,  one  comes  riding  up  to 
the  Elector  and  tells  him,  '  how  faith  fid  and  well  disposed 
he  is,  etc.,  that  he  has  heard  this  or  that  from  the  Empei'or, 
and  if  one  would  only  yield  in  this  or  that  point,  tJie  affairs 
might  still  be  adjusted.'  Immediately  Phili]>  is  on  hand, 
writes  up  an  article,  comments  on  it,  etc.  This  is  then  car- 
ried by  Heller  and  Brentz  to  the  ^largrave.  When  then  we 
have  been  consulted,  and  we  declare  that  the  predigested 
broth  does  not  taste  good,  offense  is  given  and  the  theologians 
go  about  and  say  that  we  do  not  desire  peace,  as  though  peace 
were  indeed  to  be  surely  preserved  by  our  yielding. 

"  '■  Let  us  only  make  attack  with  the  Landgrave,  whom 
they  defamed  most  sadly  in  this  matter.  What  will  come  of 
all  this  at  last,  you  can  well  perceive  as  an  experienced  man, 


JUNE   25 Ih  — SEPTEMBER    23rcl.  501 

if  force  be  used,  as  the  Emperor  intends.  The  effort  will 
be  to  take  away  the  Gospel  from  iis  by  violence,  as  we  well 
deserve;  and  although  this  is  very  oppressive,  yet  it  is  easier 
before  God  than  that  we  should  voluntarily  enter  those  paths 
in  which  it  will  surely  be  stolen  from  us  by  treachery.  It  is 
indeed  necessary  to  call  on  God  continuously.  .  .  .  Schnepf 
alone  still  has  a  voice  to  sing  in  a  firm  and  Christian  way, 
on  which  account  he  is  often  mocked  scurrilously  by  the 
others.  Without  him  we  would  be,  as  far  as  all  the  theo- 
logians are  concerned,  at  one  with  the  other  side.'  " 


Luther  to  Spengler. 

Wolfeiibiittel. 
Erl.,  54,  188. 

August  2fth. 
We  have  heard  of  the  new  committee  at  Augsburg  and  of  the  Landgrave's  de- 
parture, and  it  is  something   wonderful   for  us  to  look  upon.     God  give  further 
grace.     Amen. 


Melanchthon  to  Luther. 
Chytr.,Ger.,400. 

August  22nd. 
Yesterday  we  brought  the  disputations  to  an  end.     Eck  ridicules  the  word  sola, 
although  he  has  not  rejected  the  doctrine  as  such. 

When  we  came  to  the  disputation  as  to  both  forms,  I  could  not  accept  the  doc- 
trine that  there  is  no  commandment  to  receive  it  in  both  forms. 

Spengler  wrote  to  Luther  concerning  the  lack  of  unity 
and  the  too  great  mildness  of  the  theologians  at  Augsburg. 
Luther  answered  him  on  August  28th,  saying  that  they  should 
consider  how  much  the  theologians  at  Augsburg  had  been 
obliged  to  endure,  and  should  not  blame  them  for  the  rea- 
son that,  despite  their  yielding,  up  to  this  moment  the  truth 
had  remained  unharmed.  Even  if  somewhat  too  much  had 
been  yielded,  which  he  nevertheless  hoped  was  not  the  case, 
yet  the  matter  was  not  lost,  but  it  was  still  possible  to  begin 
a  new  conflict.  Spengler  should  rest  assured,  that  he,  Lu- 
ther, would  yield  nothing  pertaining  to  the  Gospel.     And  if 


503         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

his  men  at  Augsburg  yielded  auything,  it  would  go  bad  with 
the  Roman  party. 

To  Jonas,  Luther  wrote  that  he  had  received  many  letters 
in  Avhich  it  was  stated  that  tlie  Lutheran  side  had  been  be- 
trayed, and  that  too  much  had  been  yielded  for  the  sake  of 
peace :  but  that  he  himself  relied  on  the  reaction.  He  said 
further  that  he  would  not  endure  the  inconceivable  and  im- 
possible Articles  which  the  mediation  committee  had  com- 
posed, even  if  an  angel  of  Heaven  commanded  him  to  do  so. 
The  Roman  party  would  never  yield  a  hair's  breadth. 
There  was  not  much  need  of  composing  many  articles.  If  • 
the  Canon  were  yielded  to  Rome,  the  whole  Gospel  would  be 
denied.  If  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  were  yielded,  our 
denial  of  the  Gospel  would  be  so  much  the  greater.  Peace 
might  charm  with  its  syren  tones,  but  God  must  be  obeyed. 
This  is  not  a  matter  of  prophesying  war,  but  a  matter  of  be- 
lieving and  confessing.  He  knew  Eck's  intention  very  well. 
The  thing  to  do  was  to  terminate  matters  and  only  come  back 
home  again.  If  a  war  followed,  it  would  follow.  God 
would  deliver  His  people,  even  out  of  the  Babylonian  fur- 
nace of  fire. 

The  kindliness,  the  patience,  the  unfaltering  friendship, 
the  toleration  of  Luther  for  Melanchthon  during  all  these 
days  is  marvelous.  He  loved,  he  pled,  he  pitied,  but  the 
words  of  thunder  and  the  bolts  of  lightning  which  he  hurled 
so  fearlessly  upon  the  enemy  did  not  descend  upon  the  weary, 
worn,  and  erring  head  of  his  disciple  and  follower.  To  the 
end  of  his  life  Luther  constantly  overlooked  the  aberrations 
of  Melanchthon  with,  a  self-denial,  a  composure,  and  a  taci- 
turnity that  are  remarkable. 

Salig's  opinion  of  Melanchthon  is  as  follows : — "^ 

''  We  will  not  excuse  Melanchthon  in  all  things,  since  it 

is  known  that  he  was  not  indeed  the  most  steadfast  sort  of  a 

person.     But  that  Baumgartner  perhaps  wrote  much  from 

jealousy,  is  also  no  doubt  not  to  be  denied.     At  least  Luther 

"I,  335. 


JUNE   25 th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  503 

always  knew  how  to  recognize  Melanchtbon's  great  services 
and  his  excellent  adaptability,  and  praises  him  in  a  way  he 
would  not  have  done,  if  he  had  not  been  satisfied  with  his 
leadership.""* 

Cyprian's  judgment  on  Melanchthon  is  more  serious  than 
that  of  Salig.  In  one  place  he  quotes  an  estimate  by  Coch- 
laeus,  which  we  give,  not  because  we  believe  it  really  char- 
acterizes Melanchthon,  but  because  it  so  graphically  depicts 
the  impression  that  men  of  compromise — especially  if  they 
be  theological  diplomatists — make  even  upon  their  enemies, 
though  the  latter  be  their  equals  in  negotiative  craft.  Cyp- 
rian says: — 

"  Therefore  Cochlaeus  wrote  to  the  Emperor  concerning 
Melanchthon: — Your  Majesty  clearly  understands  that  that 
man,  by  his  bland  speech  and  his  wolflike  hypocrisy,  con- 
ducted himself  more  disgracefully  at  the  court  at  Augsburg 
than  the  absent  Luther  did  by  open  taunts  and  bitter  words. 
For  Luther  rallied  in  his  customary  manner ;  but  he,  indeed, 
like  a  deceitful  serpent,  intending  frauds,  endeavored  to 
overcome  not  the  peo})lc  but  the  prominent  men  by  his  hy- 
pocrisy. By  so  much  as  Philip  is  more  agreeable  to  learned 
men  than  Luther,  and  by  so  much  as  he  is  more  modest  in 
teaching,  so  much  the  more  grievously  did  he  harm  the 
Church:  it  was  his  habit  to  reply  that  they  need  not  await 
what  Luther  would  write,  but  what  the  prince  would  propose 
to  the  Emperor.  How  craftily  he  acted  with  the  legate 
(Campeggi),  no  one  knew  better  than  the  legate  himself, 
who,  not  sufficiently  trusting  his  tears  and  entreaties,  at  first, 
ordered  him  to  put  his  petition  in  writing,  and  yet  was  not 
able  to  preclude  all  deception  by  this  species  of  cunning. 
For  he  said  some  time  after  that  he  could  not  trust  him  in 
any  respect  after  he  had  heard  him." 


«« This  is  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Salig.  Luther  .never  had  blame  for 
Melanchthon,  but  was  silent,  even  where  the  younger  disciple,  by  his  incon- 
sistency, placed  him  in  a  position  of  great  peril. 

"  Cyprian,  p.  107. 


504        THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Even  Hofstatter  *'"  writing  on  the  anniversary  of  Melanch- 
thon,  and  in  his  praise,  admits  all  the  facts  respecting  the 
failings  of  the  great  Pra^ceptor.     He  says: — 

"  We  see  his  failings  not  only  in  the  Melanchthon  of  the 
Variata  and  of  the  Interim,  in  his  various  attempts  to 
greatly  weaken  the  original  doctrine  as  toward  Rome  and 
r^alvin,  and  to  again  veil  the  truth  that  had  become  recog- 
nized :  we  also  know  quite  well  how  he,  to  start  with,  lacked 
competency  to  cope  with  the  many  works  that  crowded  him 
in  ecclesiastical  and  governmental  polity.  Moreover  we 
realize  that  in  the  timidity  of  his  nature,  in  his  susceptibility 
toward  hierarchical  power  and  an  outward  ecclesiasticism, 
he  did  not  consistently  follow  the  Reformatory  views  out 
to  their  consequences  with  the  bold  determination  of  a 
Luther.  We  may  perhaps  also  deplore  the  fact  that  such  a 
man  of  learning,  and  of  the  cathedra,  was  drawn  so  inex- 
tricably into  the  practical  affairs  of  the  Church  and  was  so 
restrained  in  a  free  scientific  development  of  the  new  ideas. 
But  all  that  does  not  lessen  his  merit  nor  our  gratitude.  All 
that  cannot  make  us  forget  what  the  same  Melanchthon  gave 
our  nation  and  our  Church." 

Again  Jlofstiitter  says: — • 

"  But  now  Melanchthon  did  not  abide  by  it  [the  Augsburg 
Confession].  His  anxious  looking  to  see  which  way  the 
wind  blew  at  the  imperial  court,  the  feeling  that  he  was 
responsible  for  an  unfortunate  issue  of  this  Diet,  from  which 
so  much  was  promised  for  the  evangelical  cause,  led  him,  at 
Augsburg,  into  many  a  crooked  way  and  into  much  deplor- 
able yielding.  He  invites  Cochliius  to  dine,  and  negotiates 
with  the  secretary  of  the  Emperor.  Responding  to  the  wish 
of  the  Emperor,  he  declares  himself  ready  to  settle  the  whole 
matter  privately,  and  not  to  insist  upon  the  public  discus- 
sion. After  this  he  turns  to  the  Legate  of  the  Pope  and 
intends  not  to  decline  any  conditions  of  peace  that  may  be  at 


6'«  Die  Augshurgischc  Konfcssion  in  ihrer  Bedeutung  fiir  das  kirchliche  Leben 
der  Gegenwart.     Leipzig,  1897. 


JUNE   i25tli  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  505 

all  possible.  lie  i^roclaims  the  mildness  of  Rome  and  at 
last  discovers  only  a  slight  deviation  in  ceremonies  [between 
Rome  and  the  Evangelical  side].  He  does  not  venture  any 
longer  to  demand  the  abolition  of  the  mass,  and  while  the 
Romish  Confutation  with  its  groundless  complaints  and  the 
demand  of  the  Emperor,  sharpened  by  threats,  to  return  to 
obedience  to  the  Church,  was  the  very  thing  to  strengthen 
the  Evangelical  Princes  in  their  Faith  and  to  fill  them  with 
immovable  courage;  while  Luther  who  from  the  very  start 
had  been  moved  by  doctrinal  and  not  by  political  considera- 
tions, not  only  failed  to  grieve  over  such  a  termination  of 
the  Diet,  but  bluntly  rebuked  Melanchthon  for  his  lack  of 
Faith,  Melanchthon  again  brought  up  his  concessions  in  the 
presence  of  the  Legate,  and  stipulated,  for  his  part,  nothing 
but  the  marriage  of  priests  and  the  cup  for  the  laity,  giving 
up  all  the  rest  of  the  Reformation  as  a  temerarii  motus. 

"  It  was  only  the  Evangelical  princes  who  at  that  time 
preserved  the  Evangelical  honor  and  faith.  They  courage- 
ously and  beautifully  confess :  '  Better  perish  with  Christ, 
than  without  Him  gain  the  favor  of  the  whole  world.'  So 
also  it  was  they  who  declined  the  decree  of  the  Diet  with  its 
humiliating  conditions ;  and  the  cause  of  the  Gospel  was  not 
lost,  despite  the  enmity  of  Emperor  and  Pope,  despite  the 
disposition  to  concede  and  the  faint-heartedness  of  Melanch- 
thon; and  the  Confession  delivered  in  Augsburg  remained 
the  Creed  of  the  Reformation.*^" 

"  But,"  says  Hofstatter,  "  what  estimate  shall  we  then 
make  of  Melanchthon,  of  him  who  by  his  anxious  com- 
promising and  yielding  threatened  to  pour  away  the  great 
blessing  that  was  contained  in  his  own  Confession?  We 
neither  conceal  nor  palliate  this.  We  do  not  even  wish  to 
make  the  excuse  for  it  that  a  fateful  conflict  in  his  life 
caused  him  to  be  drawn  to  tasks  for  which  he  was  not  at 
all  fitted.     N"evertheless  we  will  not  indeed  forget  that  the 


•">  Die  AugshurgiscJie  Konfession  in  ifircr  Bedeutung  filr  das  kirchliche  Leten 
der    Gegenivart,   p.    4-7. 


506        THE   LV  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

hours  of  vexation  and  weakness  disappeared,  and  that  the 
very  days  at  Angsburg  brought  forth  that  other  Confession, 
which,  free  from  all  compromises,  again  defended  the  jewel 
of  the  Reformation  with  fresh  clear  words,  which  because 
of  its  tone  and  its  witness  soon  became  the  symbol  of  the 
Evangelical  side  and  the  Confession  of  our  Church,  and 
which  to  this  day  remains  an  eloquent  defense  even  for 
Melanehthon.  In  addition  to  this,  the  Augustana  is  and 
indeed  remains  his  work,  and  this  work  praises  its  master.""*" 

Professor  Loy,  in  his  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession," 
pronounces  a  just  judgment  on  Melanehthon  as  follows: — 

"  He  was  a  man  of  peace  and  unduly  timid  withal.  It 
is  difficult  to  speak  of  the  work  of  this  commission  without 
censuring  his  weakness  at  a  time  when  the  occasion  de- 
manded unflinching  strength.  He  hesitated  when  he  should 
have  stood  forth  as  the  bold  confessor  of  eternal  truth. 

"  The  fact  is  undeniable  that  his  lack  of  qualification  for 
leadership  .  .  .  threatened  disaster  to  the  whole  cause  of 
the  Reformation.  He  did  not  show  the  firmness  against 
men  so  resourceful  in  subterfuge  as  Eck,  which  was  befitting 
the  humble  disciple  of  Christ  who  bowed  to  the  Lord's 
Word,  whatever  might  come  of  it.  .  .  . 

"  Peace  seemed  secure  without  a  distinct  declaration  of 
the  Evangelical  truth.  Luther  who  always  looked  at  things 
in  the  clear  light  of  the  Gospel,  replied  to  Melanehthon: 
'  You  write  how  Eck  was  forced  to  confess  that  we  are  saved 
alone  by  grace;  would  to  God  that  you  had  forced  him  to 
quit  lying.' 


«'« Die  Augshnrgische  Konfession  in  ihrer  Bedeutung  fiir  das  kirchliche 
Lehen  der  Gegciacart,  p.   7. 

Hoffstatter  errs  in  supposing  that  Melanehthon.  if  not  restrained  and  hemmed 
In,  would  have  been  more  free  and  scientific  in  the  development  of  the  Churcli's 
doctrine  ;  and  that  we  owe  to  him  entirely  the  change  in  the  Confession  from 
a  mere  paper  on  Ceremonies  to  an  "Apology"  of  the  most  weighty  articles 
of  faith. 

'0  TTie  Augsburg  Concession,  p.   52-53. 


JUNE   25a  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  507 

"  Unable  in  liis  weakness  to  withstand  artifices,  Melancli- 
thon  was  allnred  into  concessions  which  were  not  even  in  ac- 
cord with  the  faith  even  of  his  sonL  But  God  still  ruled, 
and  He  had  no  concessions  to  make.  When  the  Papists  in- 
sisted that  the  Protestants  must  not  teach  that  the  Holy  Sup- 
per is  administered  in  both  kinds  by  divine  command,  Mel- 
anchthon's  conscience  overcame  his  love  of  peace,  and  nei- 
ther he  nor  his  colleagues  could  be  induced  to  make  a  con- 
cession. .  .  .  The  Lutherans  declared  that  the  people  must 
be  taught  what  the  Scriptures  teach.  The  negotiations  were 
thus  brought  to  a  close,  and  the  commission  reported  that 
no  agreement  could  be  effected." 

August  26th. 

FIRE  OPENED  FROM  COBURG. 

But  Luther,  though  he  was  so  patient  with  llelanchthon 
and  the  Augsburg  party,  and  so  apologetic  on  their  behalf 
in  all  complaints  from  outside,  took  positive  and  radical 
action  when  the  tidings  came  to  him  on  August  2Gth  con- 
cerning the  proposed  compromise.  He  wrote  no  less  than 
five  letters,  one  to  Melanchthon,  one  to  the  Elector,  one  to 
Spalatin,  one  to  Jonas  and  one  to  Brentz,  on  the  26th,  and 
three  more  on  the  28th. 

So  far  as  we  recall,  Luther  had  been  kept  in  ignorance  of 
this  new  move.  Melanchthon  had  not  written  to  him  from 
August  8th  to  August  22nd.  Before  this  letter  came,  Luther 
had  heard  some  rumors  via  Wittenberg  which  seemed  quite 
incredible,  and  of  which  he  spoke  ironically  to  Melanchthon 
in  a  letter  on  the  24th.  Besserer  reports  to  Ulm  on  this  date 
that  Luther  already  is  exceedingly  wrought  up. 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
Colest,  in,  50. 

August  sph. 

I  believe  you  have  long  ago  heard  the  latest  news  from  Augsburg,  my  dear 
Philip,  viz.,  that  fourteen  men  have  been  chosen  anevi^  as  new  mediators,  all  of 
whose  names  we  know,  and  that  you,  with  Eck,  are  the  principal  speakers,  but 


508        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Spalatin  is  the  secretary.  If  this  is  true,  it  is  wonderful.  The  Lord,  who  sent 
you  to  Augsburg,  make  you  great  and  glorious  there  !  .  .  What  shall  we 
travelers  do  but  show  our  skill  in  announcing  the  news,  while  meantime,  you  re- 
main as  disposed  to  silence  as  the  frogs  in  Seriphus. 

August  22n(l. 

Melanchtlion  had  written  to  Liitber  on  this  day,"  and  had 
told  him  of  the  happenings  in  the  larger  Commission.  Lu- 
ther was  stirred,  and  sat  down  and  told  Melanchthon  that 
the  Papacy  and  the  Gospel  doctrine  could  not  exist  together, 
much  less  be  reconciled ;  that  he  had  a  crafty  set  to  deal 
with,  whose  aim  was  to  suppress  the  Evangelicals;  that 
Melanchthon's  defence  of  justification,  and  the  two  modes 
was  good,  but  that  he  could  not  have  done  worse  in  inviting 
a  severe  and  dangerous  Avar  by  again  yielding  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  bishops,  and  returning  to  the  old  rites. 


Cod.,  Jen.,  b.  fol.  114. 
CiJlest.,  Ill,  fol.  50b. 


Luther  to  Melanchthon. 


August  i6th. 


I  pray  you,  is  not  ever}'thing  deception  there  ?  You  now  have  Campeggi,  you 
have  the  Saltzberger,  you  have  the  silenced  monks  who  crossed  the  Rhine  to 
Spires.   .   .    . 

What  have  I  ever  hoped  for  less,  and  what  do  I  now  wish  less,  than  transac- 
tions concerning  a  union  in  doctrine?  As  if  we  really  could  destroy  the  Pope,  or 
as  if  as  long  as  popery  remains  unhanned,  our  doctrine  could  be  unharmed.  Of 
course  there  can  be  union  and  compromise,  in  order  that  he  may  remain  pope.  He 
will  concede  and  allow,  if  we  do  thus.  But  God  be  praised  that  you  have  not 
accepted  anything  from  them. 

You  write  that  Eck  has  been  forced  by  you  to  confess  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  ;  would  to  God  though  that  you  had  also  compelled  him  not  to  lie.  For  Eck 
confesses  that  righteousness  comes  from  faith,  but  at  the  same  time  he  defends  all  the 
abominations  of  popery,  kills,  persecutes,  and  condemns  those  who  confess  this 
doctrine  of  the  faith.      He  is  not  repenting,  but  continues. 

The  whole  of  the  Roman  party  does  the  very  same  thing,  and  with  these  people 
you  are  seeking  conditions  of  unity  and  worrying  yourself  in  vain,  until  they  shall 
find  something  plausible  by  which  they  can  destroy  us.  In  the  matter  of  the  two 
forms  you  have  done  right.    .   .   . 

It  is  not  in  our  power  to  place  or  tolerate  anything  in  God's  church  or  in  His 


"  Chytr.,  p.  265. 


JUNE   25tli— SEPTEMBER    23rd.  509 

service  which  cannot  be  defended  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  I  am  vexed  not  a  little 
by  this  talk  of  compromise,  which  is  a  scandal  to  God.  With  this  one  word 
"mediation"  I  could  easily  make  all  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  God  matters  of 
compromise.  For  if  we  admit  that  there  is  a  compromise  in  the  Word  of  God, 
how  can  we  defend  ourselves  so  that  not  all  things  become  compromises.   .   .   . 

As  to  the  restoration  of  obedience  and  jurisdiction  to  the  bishops  and  to  the 
common  forms  and  ceremonies,  as  you  write:  '*  Take  heed,  and  do  not  give  more 
than  you  have, ' '  so  that  we  are  not  forced  into  a  serious  and  dangerous  war  anew, 
to  defend  the  Gospel.  I  know  that  you  always  except  the  Gospel  in  these 
dealings,  but  I  fear  that  they  might  blame  us  as  a  faithless  and  unreliable  people, 
if  we  do  not  uphold  what  they  desire,  fur  they  will  take  our  admonitions  in  a 
wide,  ever  wider,  the  widest  possible  sense;  but  give  to  their  own  a  narrow,  ever 
narrower,  the  narrowest  possible  sense. 

In  short,  I  am  thoroughly  displeased  with  this  negotiating  concerning  union  in 
doctrine,  since  it  is  utterly  impossible,  except  the  Pope  wishes  to  put  away  his 
power.  It  was  enough  to  give  account  of  our  faith  and  to  ask  for  peace.  Why  do 
we  hope  to  convert  them  to  the  truth  ?  We  have  come,  to  hear  whether  or  not  they 
will  assent  to  our  Confession,  and  they  be  free  to  remain  where  they  are.  And  we 
ask  whether  they  reject  our  side,  or  acknowledge  it  as  right.  If  they  reject  it,  of 
what  use  is  it  to  try  to  enter  into  harmony  with  enemies  ?  If  they  acknowledge  it 
as  right,  why  should  we  retain  the  old  abuses?  And  since  it  is  certain  that  our 
side  will  be  condemned  by  them,  as  they  are  not  repenting,  and  are  striving  to 
retain  their  side,  why  do  we  not  see  through  the  matter  and  recognize  that  all 
their  concessions  are  a  lie  ? 

We  present  some  further  extracts  from  this  powerful 
battery  that  was  now  directed  from  Coburg  against  the 
compromises  at  Augsburg: — 

To  Justus  Jonas. 
3V.  by  Currie. 

August  26th  or  2^th. 

I  got  a  sight  of  our  people's  opinion  concerning  our  affairs,  but  what  I  wrote 
Philip  I  write  to  you,  that  for  Christ's  honour  and  to  please  me  you  would  believe 
that  Campeggius  is  a  perfect  devil. 

I  have  been  much  upset  through  our  opponents'  propositions.  As  sure  as  I 
live  this  is  a  trick  of  Campeggius  and  the  Pope,  who  first  tried  by  threats  to  ruin  our 
cause,  and  now  by  artifice.  You  have  resisted  force  and  withstood  the  Emperor's 
imposing  entry  into  Augsburg  !  And  now  you  must  put  up  with  the  tricks  of  those 
cowled  monks  which  the  Rhine  conveyed  to  Speyer,  and  their  arrival  is  closely 
associated  with  this  talk  of  unity  of  doctrine. 

This  is  the  whole  secret.  But  He  who  enabled  you  to  withstand  violent  meas- 
ures will  strengthen  you  to  overcome  feebler.  But  more  of  this  to  Philip  and  the 
Elector.  Be  valiant  and  concede  nothing  which  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture, 
The  Lord  Jesus  be  with  you.     Amen.     From  my  hermitage. 

Martin  Luther. 
36 


510         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 
Luther  to   Spalatin. 

Cod.,  Jen.,  b.,  fol.  225  b. 
Aurifaber  III,  fol.  86. 
Cijlest.,  Ill,  fol.  59. 

August  26th. 

I  have  heard,  certainly  not  with  pleasure,  that  you  have  begun  a  marvellous 
work,  namely,  to  unite  the  Pope  and  Luther.  But  the  Pope  will  not  desire  it,  and 
Luther  forbids  it ;  see  to  it  that  your  pains  are  not  in  vain. 

Continue  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  ju.stification  by  faith  with  courage.  It  is  the 
heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  that  shall  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent. 

Martin  Luther. 
[And  see  the  letter  of  Besserer  to  Ulm,  of  Aug.  24,  in  Kolde,  Analecta,  p.  148.] 

We  also  have  two  Opinions  of  Luther  concerning  the 
means  of  compromise  by  both  these  commissions.  The  first 
is  written  for  the  theologians.  In  the  doctrinal  articles  he 
writes  there  is  nothing  to  yield.  Then  he  shows  that  in  the 
articles  of  abuses  nothing  of  all  that  which  was  proposed 
by  the  Papists  can  be  yielded  with  a  good  conscience.  (Lu- 
ther goes  into  detail  on  each  of  the  abuses.)  This  Opinion 
of  Luther  was  as  hearty  as  thorough,  and  was  according  to 
the  Word  of  God. 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
Cod.,  Jen.,  b.,  fol.  114. 
Aurifaber  III,  fol.  79. 
DeWettelV,  fol.  156. 

August  28th. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  My  dear  Philip,  I  gave  answer  to  these  questions 
yesterday.  And  what  is  this,  that  they  undertake  to  aid  such  openly  godless 
affairs,  when  they  themselves  did  not  teach  thus  before.  .  .  .  You  could  do  noth- 
ing more  right,  in  my  opinion,  than  io  free  yourself  front  these  gross  intrigues 
by  saying  that  you  would  give  to  God  what  belongs  to  God  and  to  the  Emperor 
what  belongs  to  the  Emperor.  .  .  .  Deal  in  a  manly  way,  and  let  your  heart 
be  comforted. 

Martin  Luther. 

The  other  Opinion  he  wrote  to  the  Elector  John  on  Au- 
gust 26th,  concerning  the  proposed  methods  of  the  other 
party  and  particularly  concerning  private  masses,  com- 
munion in  one  form,  and  the  canon.  For  the  Elector  had 
written  to  Luther  and  sent  him  both  copies  of  both  sides 
of  the  commission  and  asked  his  opinion  on  it.    In  it  Luther 


JUNE   25t]i  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  511 

is  amazed  at  tlie  Papists,  that  they  regarded  the  communion 
in  one  or  both  forms  as  a  matter  of  indifference.  If  private 
masses  were  to  be  continued,  the  Gospel  must  be  given  up, 
and  mere  good  works  of  man  must  be  accepted.  He  decides 
in  the  same  way  as  to  the  Canon,  and  then  concludes: 
"  Finally,  we  will  suffer  and  yield  everything  that  lies  in  our 
power.  But  what  does  not  lie  in  our  power  we  ask  that  they 
will  not  desire  of  us.  What  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Word  of  God,  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  accept ;  and  what  has 
been  established  witliout  the  Word  of  God,  in  tlie  matter  of 
service,  is  also  not  in  our  power  to  accept." 

THE    CONFESSION    TO    STAND    UNALTERED. 

But  before  Luther's  latest  letters  could  reach  Wittenberg, 
the  Electoral  party  at  Augsburg  had  decided  to  terminate  the 
Commission's  negotiations.  Their  decision  is  of  August 
28th,  and  in  it  they  declare  they  will  adhere  to  the  Original 
Confession  without  any  "  Weiterung."  The  Elector  said 
he  would  depart  from  Augsburg,  as  he  saw  very  well  that 
the  deliberations  were  in  vain.  On  August  29tli  Melanch- 
thon  and  certain  others  were  commanded  to  prepare  an 
Apology  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  refuting  the  Confu- 
tation." 

But  the  Emperor  was  determined  on  an  agreement,  and 
as  it  was  supposed  that  things  would  go  better  if  some  of  the 
more  violent  individuals,  such  as  Duke  George,  were  set  aside, 
he  resolved  to  name  a  smaller  body,  with  only  Eck  on  the  one 
side  and  Melanchthon  on  the  other.  The  two  other  Pro- 
testant members  were  Briick  and  Heller."  This  last  com- 
mittee was  short-lived. 


"  Preface   to   Apology. 

"  On  the  23rd  of  August  the  Catholic  estates,  sent  some  of  their  counsellors . 
to  the  Elector  to  say  that  they  were  willing  to  ordain  a  smaller  commission, 
and  with  the  prayer  that  the  Elector  should  not  depart.  The  Elector  promised 
to  communicate  this  to  those  associated  with  him  and  to  reply  to  the  Elector 
of  Maintz.  Although  the  Evangelical  princes  at  first  declined  in  view  of  the 
former  experience,  yet  to  avoid  trouble,  it  was  at  last  yielded  to.  Three  per- 
sons were  appointed  on  each  side.  The  following  day,  the  21th  of  August,  this 
conference  began.  The  Papist.'^  sang  their  old  song.  The  Lutherans  replied 
that  further  deliberations  might  have  been  spared  if  there  was  nothing  new  to 


512        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

This  new  move  awoke  the  indignation  of  the  ]Sruremberg 
deputies,  as  we  saw  above,  and  of  the  Landgrave  Philip. 
''  Melanchthon,"  wrote  the  Landgrave  to  Zwingli,  "  walks 
backward  like  a  crab."  To  his  delegates  at  Augsburg  the 
Landgrave  said,  "  Overcome  these  dreadful  combinations 
of  ]\Ielanchthon,  tell  the  deputies  to  be  men,  and  not 
women."  "  Melanchthon  endeavored  to  defend  himself  by 
prophesying  anarchy,  and  a  sj^oliation  of  the  church,  owing 
to  the  cupidity  of  the  secular  Princes,  if  the  spiritual  juris- 
diction of  the  bishops  were  withdrawn.  And,  in  the  future, 
tyranny  would  reign  worse  than  that  of  the  present. 

Under  the  new  commission  the  liomanists  yielded  every- 
thing except  the  three  points:  penance  for  the  remission  of 
the  penalties  of  sin ;  merit  of  good  works ;  and  validity  of  the 
private  mass;  but  the  Protestants  would  not  agree,  and  the 
negotiations  came  to  an  end  on  August  30th.  The  Roman 
part  of  the  commission  reported  the  failure  to  tlie  Emperor. 


be  brought  forward,  and  referred  to  their  former  answer.  The  Papists  then 
Introduced  other  measures,  that  were,  however,  essentially  the  same  as  the  old 
ones.  They  said  they  desired  only  to  save  the  Abuses.  They  flattered  the 
Lutherans  with  the  promise  of  a  Council.  They  declared  that  as  there  was 
no  promise  of  unity,  they  imderstood  that  the  Emperor  would  hold  such  a 
Council  as  would  restore  a  common  church  without  any  of  the  new  doctrines 
and  customs.  The  Protestants  answered  that  they  had  not  broken  away  from 
the  Christian  and  good  order  of  the  church.  On  the  28th  of  August  they 
gave   their  final   explanation. 

On  the  25th  of  August  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther  what  had  happened  In 
the  smaller  commission,  and  since  the  letters  of  Luther  referred  to  before 
had  not  yet  arrived,  asked  him  again  whether  they  could  not  yield  to  the 
Catholics  if  they  would  not  reject  communion  under  the  one  form  so  that  they 
would  again  get  both  forms.  He  reported  that  the  Papists  had  now  ceased  to 
press  the  private  masses  upon  the  Lutherans  but  that  they  were  all  the  more 
stubborn  with  reference  to  the  Canon  which  the  Lutherans  should  accept  with 
a  comfortable  interpretation.  He  recognized  the  deceit  that  lay  beneath  this. 
He  complained  that  he  was  In  bad  repute  because  he  had  wished  to  give  back 
the  jurisdiction  to  the  bishops,  and  he  sent  a  copy  of  the  points  that  were 
taken  up  at  the  last  commission.  In  another  letter  he  wrote  that  although  he 
was  now  threatened  with  danger,  he  was  not  afraid  for  his  own  person,  but 
was  nevertheless  anxious  because  of  the  weakness  of  our  princes. 

Luther  replied  that  he  was  very  sorry  that  he  could  inot  be  present  with  him 
In  the  most  beautiful  and  the  most  holy  confession  of  Christ.  He  made  no 
question  of  rejecting  the  mass.  Hezekiah  broke  the  brazen  serpent  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  it  had  been  made  for  the  memory  and  praise  of  the 
divine  work.  The  Papists  ought  first  of  all  be  restored  to  the  doctrine  of 
faith  and  works,  and  the  church  be  restored  to  her  right  customs  again  and 
then  the  ceremonies  would  take  care  of  themselves. 

In  another  writing  he  painfully  awaits  Melanchthon's  either  secret  or  open 
return,  as  of  a  Lot  in  Sodom,  and  admonishes  him  to  hold  out  since  great 
joys  would  follow  his  suffering. — Salig,  II,  314-328. 

'♦  C.  R.,  II.   327. 


JUNE  25th  — SEPTEMBER   23rd.  513 

The  Elector  and  the  Margrave  now  determined  to  nego- 
tiate no  further  concerning  the  Confession,  and  asked  the 
Emperor's  leave  to  depart.  Charles  refused,  and  then  sought 
to  win  the  Lutherans  by  kindness,  and  later,  early  in  Septem- 
ber, by  threats  of  summary  measures. 

September  7th. 

On  this  day,  Wednesday,  at  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon, 
the  Lutherans  were  summoned  to  the  Emperor,  and  Count 
Palatine  told  them,  "  That  the  Emperor,  considering  their 
small  number,  had  not  expected  that  they  would  uphold  new 
sects  against  the  ancient  usages  of  the  L'niversal  Church ; 
but  that  desirous  to  the  last  of  being  kind,  he  would  require 
of  the  Pope  the  convocation  of  a  Council ;  and  that,  in  the 
meantime,  they  should  return  into  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  restore  everything  to  its  ancient  footing."  "  The 
Protestants  replied  that  they  had  supported  no  new  sects 
contrary  to  Scripture ;  '*  that  if  they  had  failed  to  agree,  it 
was  because  they  must  remain  faithful  to  the  Word  of  God ; 
that  if  the  Emperor  would  convoke  a  general  free  and  Chris- 
tian Council  in  Germany,  he  would  be  carrying  out  the 
promise  of  preceding  Diets;  but  that  nothing  could  compel 
them  to  again  set  up  any  ordinances  in  their  churches  that 
were  opposed  to  God's  commands. 

At  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  the  Lutherans  were  again 
called  before  the  Emperor  and  informed  of  his  astonishment 
that  after  so  much  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic 
commission,  the  Protestants  would  yield  nothing.  Their 
comparative  significance  in  comparison  with  the  church  and 
the  Emperor  were  pointed  out.  It  w-as  said  to  be  no  more 
than  right  that  they  as  a  minority  should  yield  to  the  ma- 
jority. The  Emperor  would  give  them  until  to-morrow  at 
one  o'clock  to  decide  whether  they  would  persist  in  refusing 
further  means  of  conciliation. 


"C.  R.,  II,   355;   Forst.,   Urk.,  II,   391. 
T«  Briick,  Apol,  p.  136. 


514        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 
September  9th. 

Another  day  was  given  for  deliberation. 

September  10th. 

THE  FINAL  REPLY. 

The  Protestants  replied  to  the  Emperor  that  new  efforts 
at  conciliation  would  only  bring  fatigue  to  the  Emperor  and 
the  Diet,  and  that  all  that  was  needed  were  rules  for  polit- 
ical peace  until  a  Council  should  assemble." 

The  Emperor  forbade  the  Elector  to  leave  Augsburg,  and 
this  led  to  personal  rejoinders  between  the  two,  with  great 
disturbance  in  the  city  of  Augsburg. 

September  12th. 


Prince  John  Frederick  left  xA.ugsburg. 

September  13th. 

At  six  A.  M.,  Briick  and  Melanchthon  met  a  Roman  com- 
mittee to  settle  details.  The  Lutherans,  including  Jonas 
and  Melanchthon,  now  saw  the  abyss  into  which  they  had 
well-nigh  fallen,  and  the  reaction  which  Luther  had  proph- 
esied set  in  against  the  dreadful  articles  to  which  they  came 
so  near  yielding.  Luther  had  written  to  them  to  return 
from  Augsburg,  even  if  they  were  cursed  by  the  Pope  and 
the  Emperor." 

Here  comes  the  letter  in  which  Luther  says  he  will 
canonize  them  for  confessing  Christ : — 

Luther  to  Melanchthon. 

MS.  in  WolfenbUttel,  Cod.  Helmst.  108.  f.  96. 
Colest.,  Ill,  87b  ;  Erl.,  Br.  W.,  VIII,  258. 

September  i§th. 

Yesterday  our  young  prince  came,  arriving  suddenly.  I  was  glad  they  had 
fled  from  yonder  commotion.      God  grant  I  might  see  you  soon  as  one  escaped,  if 


"  Forst.,   Urk.,  II,  410  ;  Bruck,  Apol.,  p.  139. 
"  Vel  maledicte  a  Papa  et  Caesare. 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  515 

I  be  not  permitted  to  await  you  as  one  released.  Vou  have  done  enough  and  more 
than  enough  :  now  the  remaining  time  is  for  the  Lord,  that  He  accomplish  it ; 
and  He  will  also  do  so.     Only  be  a  man,  and  hope  in  Ilim.   .   .   . 

Remember  that  you  are  one  of  those  who  are  called  Lot  in  Sodom,  whose  souls 
are  tormented  day  and  night  by  godless  deeds.    .   .   . 

May  the  Lord  shortly  get  you  loose  from  Augsburg. 

You  have  confessed  Christ,  you  have  offered  peace,  you  have  obeyed  the  Em- 
peror, you  have  endured  injuries,  you  have  been  drenched  in  revilings,  you  have 
not  returned  evil  for  evil.  In  brief,  you  have  worthily  done  God's  holy  work  as 
becometh  saints. 

Be  glad,  then,  in  the  Lord,  and  exult,  ye  righteous.  Long  have  ye  borne  wit- 
ness in  the  world,  look  up  and  lift  up  your  heads,  for  your  redemption  draweth 
nigh.  /  wiil  canonize  you  faithful  members  of  Christ,  and  what  greater  glory  can 
ye  have  than  to  have  yielded  Christ  faithful  service,  and  shown  yourselves  mem- 
bers worthy  of  Him. 

Your  Martin  Luther. 


Melanchthon  was  already  engaged,  lieart  and  soul,  in  de- 
fending the  Confession.  The  reaction  had  come  to  his 
nature.  His  zeal  in  mediating  had  become  zeal  in  defense. 
In  a  few  days  his  "Apology "  would  be  completed.  The 
Elector  was  deaf  to  all  further  appeals  and  threats  of  the 
Emperor.  He  was  determined  to  abide  by  the  Confession, 
unaltered,  after  all  these  experiences  at  variation,  and  to  leave 
Augsburg. 

There  is  no  question  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession  gained  its  immeasurable  influence  in 
the  whole  Protestant  world,  as  the  charter  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, not  simply  because  of  what  it  contained,  but  because 
that  which  it  contained  both  in  expression,  and  in  implica- 
tion, was  so  stubbornly  fought  for  against  the  combined 
civil  and  religious  tyranny  of  Europe;  and  that  the  impres- 
sion made  by  this  handful  of  contestants,  for  the  pure  Word 
of  God,  which  they  would  neither  compromise  nor  change 
under  flattery  or  threats,  in  addition  to  the  Faith  and  the 
Document  itself,  combined  to  produce  results  accepted,  but 
scarcely  recognized  in  some  of  their  main  features  by  all 
subsequent  generations. 


516         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

September  15th. 

To  Katherine,  Luther's  Wife. 

September  75. 

God's  will  be  done,  if  only  the  Diet  were  at  an  end.  We  have  done  and  con- 
ceded enough.  The  Papists  will  not  yield  a  hair-breadth,  but  one  will  come  who 
will  compel  them  to  do  so. 

Martin  Luther. 

Hieronymus  Baumgartner '8  TO  Lazarus  Spengler. 

In  J.  F.  Meyers  dissert,  de  lenitate  Phil.  Melanchthonis,  p.  48. 
Salig,  II,  p.  334. 
C.  B.,  II,  372. 

September  i£th. 

It  is  often  cast  up  to  us  openly  that  we  are  constantly  taking  our  stand  upon 
our  theologians  and  learned  men,  whereas  it  turns  out  that  our  theologians  are 
altogether  * schiedlich,*  but  we  are  unwilling  to  follow  them. 

Then  manuscripts  of  Philip  are  shown  us,  which  he  sends  to  them  secretly,  often 
unrequested,  and  in  which  he  makes  propositions  that  are  not  only  unchristian,  but 
which  it  is  also  entirely  impossible  to  take  up,  especially  for  the  princes.  Then  he 
says :  Oh,  if  only  we  were  away,  as  though  they  would  then  afterward  do  what 
they  wished.   .   .   . 

Therefore,  I  pray  you  for  the  sake  of  God  and  His  Word  that  you  will  also  do 
your  part  and  write  to  Dr.  Martin  Luther  that,  as  to  one  through  whom  God  again 
restored  His  Word  to  the  World  for  the  first  time,  he  would  restrain  Philip  by 
force,  and  would  warn  the  pious  princes,  and  especially  his  own  lord,  against 
him,  and  admonish  to  steadfastness. 

For  at  this  Diet  there  is  no  human  being  up  to  the  present  moment  who  has 
done  the  Gospel  more  harm  than  Philip,  who  has  fallen  into  such  presumptuousness 
that  he  not  only  will  not  hear  any  one  speak  and  advise  otherwise,  but  bursts  out 
into  ill-devised  swearing  and  scolding  that  he  may  terrify  every  one  and  suppress 
him  with  his  own  opinion  and  authority. 

I  do  not  like  to  write  this  of  him,  since  he  has  always  been  esteemed  highly  by 
many,  and  I  have  acquiesced  in  this,  and  at  the  same  time  have  yielded  much  to 
him  against  my  conscience.  But  now  the  time  of  crisis  has  come,  so  that  to  me, 
if  God  will,  neither  Luther  nor  Philip  shall  be  so  dear  that  I  will  try  to  please  them 
against  God's  Word. 

Dated.     Augsburg  in  haste,  Thursday,  September  15th,  1530. 

Hieronymus  Baumgartner. 

September  17th. 

In  response  to  Luther's  appeal,  the  Elector  prepared  to 


"On  Jerome  Baumgartner  see  article  in  the  Deutsche  AUg.  Biof/.  II,  p.  169 
and  Nik.  Muller,  Bcitr.  c.  Bricfwcchscl  dcs  dltcren  Hieronymus  Baumgdrtner. 
Mitt.  d.  Ver.  f.  Gcsch.  Niirnhergs,  X   (1893). 


JUNE   Srjth  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  517 

quit  Augsbiirg  on  this  Saturday ;  but  the  Emperor  obliged 
him,  under  various  pleas  and  in  the  midst  of  many  inter- 
views, to  delay  his  departure. 

ffeptemher  19th. 

On  this  Monday,  Charles  requested  the  Elector  to  remain 
some  days  longer.  The  Elector  was  not  sure  that  he  was  not 
now  a  prisoner,  but  said  he  would  wait  till  Friday;  and  if 
nothing  was  done  by  that  time,  he  would  leave  Augsburg  at 
once.     The  party  felt  they  might  be  doomed  to  be  hanged. 

Luther,  meantime,  defends  Melanchthon  before  outsiders, 
and  absolves  him  from  having  vielded  too  much : — 

September  20th. 

To  Philip  Melanchthon. 
Tr.  by  Ciirrie. 

September  20. 

To  the  learned  Philip  Melanchthon,  servant  of  the  Lord. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ  !  You  could  not  credit,  my  Philip,  what  a  swarm 
of  verbal  and  written  complaints  I  received  after  I  got  your  letter,  and  very 
specially  concerning  yourself  I  tell  you  this  most  unwillingly,  for  I  am  tenderly 
solicitous  not  to  grieve  you  in  the  slightest,  for  you  should  receive  only  consolation 
from  me,  who  have  always  tried  to  do  so.  But  now  I  have  our  people's  letters 
and  the  other  party  to  contend  with. 

I  defend  myself  thus.  At  first  our  Augsburg  friends  sent  me  very  different 
accounts. 

But  I  am  determined  rather  to  believe  you  than  others,  and  hope  you  will  con- 
ceal nothing  pertaining  to  the  cause  from  me. 

For  I  am  convinced  that  you  will  concede  nothing  which  could  injure  the  con- 
fession and  the  gospel. 

But  to  begin  with,  it  is  not  necessary  to  explain  explicitly  what  the  gospel  and 
our  confession  really  are  ! 

But  we  must  abide  by  our  old  agreement — to  concede  everything  in  the  inter 
ests  of  peace  which  is  not  at  variance  with  the  gospel  and  our  recent  confession 
I  have  no  fear  for  the  good  cause,  but  dreaded  force  and  cunning  on  your  account 

Pray  write,  via  Niirnberg,  all  that  has  happened  since  I  got  your  last  letter 
For  the  tragic  letters  of  our  people  would  make  us  fancy  that  our  affairs  have  as 
sumed  a  serious  aspect.  The  night  before  last  some  one  mumbled  something  like 
this  before  the  Prince  at  supper,  but  I  said,  with  assumed  indiff"erence,  that  no  one 
had  written  me  about  it.  So  I  long  for  letters.  Give  me  a  true  account  to  stop 
their  mouths.  They  pay  no  attention  to  me.  May  the  Lord  guide  and  maintain 
you.     Amen.     From  the  desert. 

Martin  Luther. 


518        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Luther  to  Link, 

MS.  in  Aurifaber,  III,  200. 

Colest,  III,  fol.  88b;  De  Wette,  IV,  167. 

September  20th. 

I  have  read  your  very  serious  complaints  against  my  Philip,  my  dear  Link,  and  if 
I  had  not  found,  from  the  letters  I  received  last  Saturday  (Sept.  17th)  from  our 
party  at  Augsburg,  that  our  case  went  into  the  hands  of  the  Emperor  \i.  e.,  for 
his  final  rescript],  I  should  have  been  very  uneasy.  But  I  hope  that  meantime 
you  have  perceived  that  the  case  is  different  from  what  you  write. 

If  it  is  not,  I  will  write  pointed  letters  to  them.  But  I  have  already  indicated 
sufficiently  that  it  is  not  my  intention  to  endorse  such  conditions  and  articles. 
Whether  they  have  been  influenced  to  decline  those  methods  through  such  letters, 
I  do  not  know. 

I  take  it  that  they  also  see  how  shameful,  disgraceful,  and  dishonest  toward 
God,  those  methods  are  with  which  our  enemies  boastfully  get  the  better  of  and 
ridicule  our  weak  little  flock. 

But  Christ  who  is  blinding  and  hardening  the  enemies  not  to  believe  the  Gospel, 
is  preparing  them  for  the  Red  Sea.  .  .  .  Let  them  go  to  the  bottom,  if  they  wish 
it.  The  Lord  will  be  with  us.  Dismiss  your  feelings.  Although  Philip  has  per- 
haps made  a  mistake  concerning  some  methods,  yet  up  to  now  there  has  been  no 
agreement  on  any  of  them,  not  even  on  those  to  which  he  has  given  his  consent. 
Rut  I  hope  that  Christ  has  used  this  masque  to  scoff  at  our  scoffers,  and  that  their 
iniquitous  joy  that  we  would  yield  will  give  place  to  their  discovery  that  they  them- 
selves have  become  the  objects  of  ridicule.  This  is  my  interpretation  ;  and  I  am 
sure  that  without  my  consent,  their  consent  is  of  no  value.  But  even  if  I  (God 
forbid  !)  should  agree  to  those  godless,  inhumane,  and  faithless  monstrosities,  the 
whole  Church  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  would  not  agree.     But  pray  for  me. 

Martin  Luther. 

September  22nd. 

APOLOGY   OFFERED   TO   THE   EMPEROR. 

The  Emperor  to-day  had  tlie  Recess  read  to  the  Elector. 
The  Edict  of  AYorms  would  be  enforced:  the  public  pros- 
ecutor was  commissioiied  to  put  the  disobedient  ones  under 
the  ban.  They  were  to  be  allowed  until  the  loth  of  April 
of  the  following  year  for  reflection,  and,  meanwhile,  should 
not  introduce  any  innovations,  and  should  allow  confession 
and  the  mass  in  their  territories.  A  General  Council  of  the 
Church  was  to  be  called. 

Briick,  in  reply,  maintained  that  the  Confession  of  the 
Lutherans  was  so  based  on  the  Word  of  God  that  it  was  im- 


JUNE   25th  — SEPTEMBER    23rd.  519 

possible  to  refute  it.  "  We  consider  it  the  very  truth  of  God, 
and  hope  by  it  to  stand  before  the  Judgment  seat  of  Christ." 
Briick  then  announced  that  they  had  refuted  the  Confu- 
tation and  offered  the  Emperor  the  Apology,  which  Melanch- 
thon  had  already  written  by  that  time.  The  Emperor  would 
have  received  it,  but  Ferdinand  prevented,  and  it  was  handed 
back. 

September  2.2nd. 

Already  on  his  journey  home,  Melanchthon  began  to  en- 
large and  deepen  his  Apology.  ITo  undertook  a  thorough 
refutation.  The  transactions  of  the  Diet  had  demonstrated 
to  him  that  a  compromise  was  not  to  be  thought  of.  Having 
no  reason  therefore  to  conciliate,  he  spoke  the  truth  with  a 
sharpness  that  was  wholesome  and  necessary. 


SEVERAL  LETTERS  AT  THE  CLOSE. 

Luther  to  Cordatus. 

MS.  in  Wolfenbuttel,  Cod.  Helmst.,  lOS,  f.  103. 
Ciilest..  ni,  89  ;  Krl.  Br.  W.,  VIII,  271. 

September  23rd. 

The  princes  are  leaving  one  after  another,  but  Satan,  extraordinarily  wicked, 
is  holding  ours  there  yet  tight. 

Martin  Luther. 

To  Katherine,  Luther's  Wife. 

Tr.  by  Currie. 

September  24^. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ,  my  dear  Kathie  !  I  hope,  by  God's  grace,  we 
shall  be  with  you  in  fourteen  days,  although  I  fear  our  cause  will  not  remain  un- 
condemned.  Efforts  are  being  made  towards  this  end.  They  will  have  difficulty 
in  forcing  the  monks  and  nuns  to  return  to  the  cloister. 

Still  has  written  ;  he  hopes  all    will   end  peacefully  in   Augsburg 

when  they  disperse.     It  would  be  a  mercy  if  God  granted  this,  for  the  Turk  is 
determined  to  be  at  us. 

I  herewith  commit  you  to  God.      Amen. 

Martin  Luther. 


520        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Luther  to  Lazarus  Spengler. 

Original  in  Coburg  Castle  Eri.  54,  p.  194. 

September  28th. 

Grace  and  peace  in  Christ.  Honourable,  prudent,  dear  sir  and  friend!  I  have 
again  received  my  letters,  that  I  had  sent  to  you  through  M.  Veil.  In  that  you 
are  anxious  that  M.  Philippus  should  be  still  more  careful,  you  are  doing  as  a  good 
friend.  .  .  .  but  God  be  praised  that  our  dear  prince  is  now  for  once  freed  from 
hell.  Let  things  happen  as  God  desires.  He  is  the  author  of  peace  and  the 
arbitrator  of  war.  We  have  done  nothing.  He  who  does  not  desire  peace,  to 
him  God  can  make  things  unpeaceful  enough.  I  will  also,  as  you  desire,  write  to 
the  pious  prince,  Margrave  George,  and  will  admonish  and  comfort.  The  merci- 
ful God  strengthen  our  dear  prince,  together  with  you,  your  preachers  and  the 
whole  congregation.     Amen. 

Martin  Luther. 

To  THE  Elector  John. 

Original  in  Archives  at  Weimar. 
Cyprian  Beilage,  p.  209. 

October  s''d,  1530. 

To  the  High-born  Elector  John.  Grace  and  peace,  most  gracious  Lord  !  I 
am  delighted  that  your  Electoral  Highness  is  emerging  from  the  Augsburg  hell, 
and  although  the  eye  of  man  may  be  displeased  with  this,  still  we  hope  that  God 
may  finish  the  work  He  has  begun  in  us,  and  strengthen  us  more  and  more.  You 
are  in  God's  hands,  even  as  we  are,  and  our  enemies  cannot  hurt  a  hair  of  our 
heads  except  God  wills  it.  I  have  committed  the  matter  to  the  Lord,  who  has  be- 
gun it,  and  will  complete  it,  I  fully  believe. 

It  is  beyond  man's  power  to  bestow  such  a  gospel  {^Lehre),  so  I  shall  watch  to 
see  who  dare  defy  God  in  these  things,  for  "bloody  and  deceitful  men  shall  not 
live  out  half  their  days."  They  may  threaten,  but  to  carry  out  is  not  in  their  own 
power.  May  your  Electoral  Grace  be  strong  in  the  spirit  of  joy  and  steadfastness. 
Amen. 

Martin  Luther. 

September  23rd. 

THE  ELECTOR  DEPARTS  FROM  AUGSBURG. 

At  five  o'clock  in  the  morning,  the  Emperor's  Rescript 
was  read  to  the  Electoral  party;  and  at  eight,  they  saw  the 
Emperor,  who  made  great  threats.  Bnt  in  spite  of  all 
threats,  they  rejected  the  Rescript,  and  parted. 


JUNE  25th— SEPTEMBER    23rd.  521 

At  three  in  the  afternoon,  the  Elector  and  his  party  left 
Augsburg! 

Thus  the  mighty  deed  done  for  Truth  in  this  ancient 
city,  escaped  a  landslide  back  to  Rome.  The  patlnvay  to  the 
few  really  great  peaks  of  history  is  strewn  with  the  boulders 
of  failure.  Behind  and  beneath  every  towering  height  that 
lifts  itself  clear  into  the  sky — we  find  hundreds  of  smaller 
and  indeterminate  hillocks  swarming  upon  its  shoulders.  It 
is  a  pity  that  many  historians  magnify  these  minor  hills  until 
the  mighty  mountain  fades  from  their  vision. 

The  pathway  up  to  and  down  from  the  height  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  is  not  important  except  as  it  exhibits 
the  difficulties  and  the  dangers  of  the  true  and  heroic  Con- 
fessional undertaking.  With  yawning  chasms  on  either  side, 
the  ascent  went  upward  until  the  height  of  Testimony  had 
been  reached  and  fixed  by  Providence,  when  the  pathway 
again  gravitated  downward  toward  the  plains  of  com- 
mingled truth  and  error. 

The  Confession  was  no  sooner  made,  than  Melanchthon 
began  writing  to  Luther  as  to  what  in  it,  in  further  dis- 
cussion, they  had  better  concede.  "  Concede !  "  said  Luther. 
'•  You  have  already  conceded  too  much." 

Through  the  guidance  of  Providence,  do^^-n  this  slippery 
pathway,  all  other  propositions  and  Confessions  were  left 
by  the  roadside  as  historical  wrecks ;  while  the  real  Word  of 
Augsburg  has  continued  to  stand  in  its  own  native  power, 
until  this  day.    It  will  abide  forever. 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION:    THE   FUETHER 

HISTORY   OF   ITS   EDITIONS   AND 

MANUSCRIPTS. 

Kolde's  Essay, 

WITH  A  Summary  of  the  Argument  as  it  beaks  on  the 
CoxFESsioxAL  (Question,  by  t.  e.  s. 


The  First  Prints — The  Editio  Princeps — The  Variata  of  1540  and  its  Influence — 
The  Corpora  Doctrinse — The  Original  Manuscripts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

The  Lack  of  a  Perfect  Copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession — Its  Text  in  the  Situation 
of  Many  Historical  Documents,  and  of  the  Scriptures — The  Difference  between  a 
Variant  and  a  Variata  Edition — The  Attitude  of  Luther  and  of  the  Elector 
toward  the  Variata — The  Attitude  of  Eck  and  of  Rome — The  Difficulties  of  the 
Colloquy  of  Worms  and  of  the  Frankfurt  Recess — The  Significance  of  the 
Convention  at  Naumburg — The  Texts  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  Related  to 
the  Book  of  Concord— The  Relation  of  the  Manuscripts  and  Prints  to  the 
Augustana  as  a  Confessional  Standard. 

ALTHOUGH  the  Emperor  had  prohibited  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Confession,  to  which  in  the  middle  of 
July  the  imperial  cities  of  Windsheim,  Ileilbronn, 
Kempten  and  Weissenbiirg  (in  the  Nordgaii)   acceded,'  yet 

'  Compare  (the  Windsheim  Delegate)  Sebastian  Hagelstein :  Letters  con- 
cerning the  Diet  at  Augsburg.  37th  Annual  Report  of  the  Historical  Associa- 
tion of  Mittelfrankford,  1869-70,  p.  82  ;  Duncker,  Zwei  Aktenstucke  zur  Re- 
formationsgeschichte  Heilbronns  in  Zeitsrhr.  f.  K.-G.  XXV,  312f.  W. 
Vogt,  Anteil  d.  Reiehsstadt  Weissenburg  an  der  ref.  Bewegung.  Erlangen 
(Dissert.).  1874,  p.  30f. 

523 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  523 

even  during  the  Diet,  as  far  as  is  known  now,  there  appeared 
six  German  editions  and  one  Latin/  Their  inexactness, 
which  might  easily  canse  bad  repute,  induced  Melanchthon, 
notwithstanding  the  imperial  prohibition,  to  enter  upon  an 
official  publication  of  the  Augustana  immediately  after  his 
return  from  Augsburg.  In  fact  it  was  at  once  undertaken, 
and,  as  a  remark  in  the  preface  shows,  according  to  which  it 
was  to  displace  the  editions  published  ante  duos  menses,^  it 
was  to  be  published  at  once.  But  the  intention  to  add  to  it 
an  apology  of  the  Confession,  the  completion  of  which  was 
delayed  by  ever  renewed  recasting,  prevented  the  execution. 
There  is  therefore  no  official  *  edition  of  the  Confession  alone 
that  appeared  in  the  year  1530. 

It  was  published  by  George  Rhau,  in  Wittenberg,  together 
with  the  Apology,  toward  the  end  of  April  or  beginning  of 
May,  1531,  and  that  in  such  a  manner,  that  since  the  Ger- 
man translation  of  the  Apology,  by  Justus  Jonas,  was  not  yet 
ready,  the  Latin  text  was  first  published  alone  and  the  Ger- 
man probably  not  until  the  Fall.  The  latter  was  partly 
furnished  to  the  subscribers  as  a  supplement,  and  partly  de- 
livered in  the  same  binding  with  the  Latin.*  The  title  was  as 
follows:  COXFESSIO  FIDEI  /  exhibita  inuic- 
liss.  Imp.  Carolo  V.  I  Caesari  Aug.  in  Comicijs  I 
Anno  I  M.  D.  XXX.  II  Addita  est  Apologia  Confessionis. 
Beide,  Deudsch/Vnd  Latinise  h.  /  Psalm.  1 1  g. 
I  Et  loquebar  de  testim.onijis  tuis  con-l  spectu  Regtim  &  non 
confundebar. 

Of  this  so-called  ediiio  princeps  at  least  two  principal  kinds 
must  be  distinguished  *  that  must  have  originated  from  the 
fact  that  during  the  printing  slight  divergencies  occurred  in 


=  B  i  n  d  s  e  i  1    C.    R.    XXVI,    478. 

'  As  this  no  longer  applied  at  the  time  of  the  real  appearance,  Melanchthon 
in  the  second  edition  of  1531  substituted :   "  ante  semestre.'' 

*  K  o  1  d  e.    Neue    Augustanastudien,    p.    729    sqq. 

*  Sept.    26th,   Melanchthon   still  wrote   about  being  busy  with  the  correctloa 
of  the  German  Apology  which  was  then  in  print. — C.  R.  II,  541  sq. 

*  On  this  and  the  titles  see  C.  R.  XXVI,  235. 


534        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

separate  sheets,  or  changes  were  made  necessary  through  cor- 
rections,' while  the  printer,  as  was  frequently  done  during 
that  period,  circulated  copies  without  the  corrections. 

Melanchthon  asserts  that  he  drew  his  text  from  exemplari 
honae  fidei,  and  the  fact  that  here  he  does  not  style  himself 
the  author,  as  he  does  in  the  case  of  the  Apology,  shows  that 
he  regarded  the  Augustana  as  an  official  document.  Never- 
theless, as  a  comparison  with  the  copies  nearest  the  time  of 
the  presentation  irrefutably  proves  he  undertook  so  many 
changes  in  his  edition,  and  in  the  German  text  even  compre- 
hensive rewritings,*  that  it  pi'esents  nothing  less  than  an  au- 
thentic text.  And  also  since  tlie  copies  presented  (of  which 
we  shall  speak  below)  have  never  been  found  again,  we  do 
not  really  know  the  text  actually  presented,  notwithstanding 
all  the  valuable  attempts  to  determine '  it,  by  means  of 
critical  methods  from  the  extant  oldest  copies. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  also  be  emphasized  that  the 
changes  apparently  made  in  the  interest  of  instructiveness 
and  clearness  in  the  edltio  princeps  and  Melanchthon's 
many  explanatory  additions '"  are  in  a  sense  noteworthy  as 
the  author's  authentic  explanations,  and  can  hardly  in  any 
place  be  regarded  as  actual  alterations  of  the  doctrinal  sub- 
atance.  Further,  that  of  the  evangelical  estates — and  theo- 
logians— although  they  might  have  recognized  these  di- 
vergencies very  easily  from  the  copies  at  hand,  which  must 
have  been  much  more  numerous  than  we  know,  no  one  took 


^  Thus  in  one  recension  of  the  Summary:  "vcl  ab  Ecclesia  Romana"  and 
"  Tota  dissensio  est  de  quibusdam  abusibus."  This  form  by  which  Melanch- 
thon returned  to  the  oldest  redaction,  probably  gave  offence,  hence  the  first 
sheets  were  reprinted,  and  the  current  cclitio  princeps  reads :  "  Vel  ab 
ecclesia  catholica  vel  ab  ecclesia  Romana,"  and   further  :   "  Sed  dissensio,"  etc. 

*  Less  in  the  Latin  text.  Here  the  most  important  changes  are  in  the  13th 
and  18th  articles.  That  the  Damnationes  in  the  Ed.  pri>ic.  were  not  in  the 
copy  presented,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  not  known  to  the  Con- 
futatio  Pontifica.  Cp.  Picker,  Die  Confutatio  des  Augsburger  Bekenntnisses. 
Leipzig.    1891,   p.    48,    60. 

*P.  Tschackert.  Die  unveraenderte  Augsburgische  Conf.  deutsch 
u.  lateinisch,  etc.  Leipzig,  1901.  V.  this  also  for  a  discussion  of  the  most 
important  manuscripts. 

"Th.     Kolde,    Die    Augsburgische    Confession    etc. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  535 

exception  to  them,  and  the  editio  ■princeps  for  decades  was  re- 
garded as  the  authentic  edition. 

While  the  next  editions — as  early  as  1531  a  Latin  octavo 
edition  appeared — npon  which  we  do  not  need  to  enter  in- 
dividually here,  where  we  are  treating  of  the  Angnstana  as 
a  Lutheran  Confession,  show  only  unimportant  corrections 
and  alterations,  the  German  octavo  edition  of  1533"  de- 
serves a  special  significance,  for  it  experienced  various  am- 
plifications in  a  series  of  articles,  e.  g.,  iv,  v,  vi,  xiii,  xv,  and 
especially  xx.  Thus  it  becomes  a  sort  of  preliminary  work 
to  the  Latin  text  of  1540,  as  ]\lelanchthon,  for  the  sake  of 
greater  clearness,  inserts  thoughts  from  the  Apology.  It 
might  already  be  described  as  a  kind  of  Variata ;  but,  so  far 
as  we  know,  that  never  was  done  in  those  days,  because  it 
docs  not  present  any  alteration  in  the  substance  of  the  doc- 
trine. 

On  the  basis  of  several  passages  from  letters  of  the  year 
1535,  in  which  Melanchthon  announces  a  revision  of  the 
Loci  and  the  Apology,  it  has  been  repeatedly  assumed'^  that 
a  Latin  Variata  of  the  Confession  appeared  as  early  as  this 
year.  But  as  such  a  one  cannot  be  proven,  and  as  Melanch- 
thon from  1531  understands  by  the  Apologia  nothing  else 
than  his  refutation  of  the  Confutatio  Pontifica,  these  an- 
nouncements mean  nothing  more  than  that  Melanchthon  in 
those  days,  beside  the  revision  of  the  Loci,  Avas  also  busy 
with  one  of  the  Apology,  which  was  never  published. 

ISreither  can  the  objection  of  the  Elector  John  Frederick 
to  Luther  and  Melanchthon  of  May  5th,  1537,  be  adduced  as 


"  Confessio  |  odder  Bekentnus  |  des  Glaubens  etlicher  Fiir —  |  sten  vnd  Stedte, 
vber  antwort  |  Keiserlicher  Majestat  auft'  [  dem  Reichstag  ge —  |  haltfn 
zu  Augspurg,  I  Anno  M.  D.  XXX.  |  Apologia  der  Confessio,  |  mit  vleis  emen- 
dirt.  |]  The  Apology  which  is  added,  shows  it  to  be  the  edition  of  1533: 
Apologia  I  der  Confession  |  aus  dem  Latin  |  verdeudschet  durch  D.  |  Justum 
Jonam  |  Witeberg. — M.  D.  XXXIII.  Gednickt  zu  Wittemberg  |  durch 
Georgen  Rhaw.  || 

'=  Thus  B  1  n  d  s  e  i  1  C.  R.  XXVI,  339  :  "  I  am  printing  the  Apology  and 
the  Loci,  and  desire  truly  to  explain  simply  the  principal  passages."  And  p. 
871  :  "  And  now  I  am  printing  both  the  Loci  Communes  and  the  Apology."  A 
third  passage  in  an  undated  letter  to  Menius,  ibid.,  p.  873 :  "  My  Apology 
has  been  born  again  and  improved  in  the  passage  concerning  justification." 
It  is  evidently  of  the  year  1531. 

37 


52(3         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

proof  for  the  existence  of  a  Variata  at  that  time.  He  sajs 
there  (C.  R.  Ill,  366):  "It  is  also  said  that  M.  Philipp 
undertooh  in  several  points  to  alter,  soften  and  publish  with 
other  changes  the  Confession  made  by  Your  Electoral  High- 
ness and  other  princes  and  estates  before  his  Imp.  Maj.  at 
Augsburg,"  The  latter  evidently  refers  to  the  fact  that 
probably  without  any  doings  of  Melanchthon,  in  the  year 
1535,  a  reprint  of  the  Latin  octavo  edition  of  1531  appeared 
in  Augsburg  (now  in  the  Nuremberg  city  library),  and  a 
second  one  in  Hagenau.  And  if  the  assertion  that  Melanch- 
thon altered  and  softened  the  Confession  does  not  merely 
rest  on  rumors  brought  to  the  Elector,  we  may  remember 
that  at  that  time,  in  circles  unfavorably  disposed  toward 
Melanchthon,  notice  was  first  directed  "  toward  the  alterations 
in  the  octavo  edition  of  1533. 

From  the  beginning  the  Augustana  served  as  the  articles 
of  confederation  of  the  Schmalkald  League,  and  the  Diet  of 
Schmalkald  in  1535  obligated  the  members  to  be  received,  to 
see  that  preaching  and  teaching  be  uniformly  done  according 
to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  pure  doctrine  of  our  Confession." 
Still  more  important  for  the  history  of  the  Augustana  and 
probably  also  of  its  text  was  the  Diet  of  Schmalkald  of  1537. 
For  there,  as  must  here  be  mentioned,  the  theologians  received 
the  commission  to  revise  the  Augustana  and  the  Confession 
and  confirm  it  with  new  arguments  from  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Fathers,  although  not  contrary  to  its  contents  or  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Wittenberg  Concordia,  but  only  to  speak  some- 
what favorably  of  the  papacy."  This  proves  what  we  know 
otherwise  also  "  that  an  expansion  and  amplification  of  the 


"  There  is  evidently  no  reason  to  doubt  with  Weber  II,  356,  and  others, 
that  the  Elector's  intended  representation  to  Melanchthon  really  occurred. 

"Winckelmann.  Strassburg's  politische  Korrespondenz,  II.  322. 
The  Wittemberg  dokloranden  were  obligated  to  the  Augustana  as  early  as 
1533. — F  orstemann,  lib.  Decanorum  Facultatis  Acad.  Vittebergensis 
Lips.  1838,  pp.  152,  158.  Op.  also  Paul  Drews,  Die  Ordination, 
Priifung  und  Lehrverpflichtung  der  Ordinanden  in  Wittenberg,  1535.  Giessen 
1904.  Also  the  theologians  participating  in  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  ac- 
knowledged the   Augustana   and   the  Apology.      C.   R.    Ill,    76. 

''Kolde.  Analccta  Lutherana,  297.      C.  R.,  Ill,   267. 

"  Cp.   the   answer   of  the   evangelical   estates   to   the   English   representatives 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  527 

text  of  the  Augiistana  was  not  regarded  as  excluded.  Thus 
the  Augiistana  might  have  been  altered  at  that  time  and  offi- 
cially at  that. 

But,  as  it  is  said,  from  lack  of  books  the  task  was  given 
up,  and,  beyond  adopting  Melanchthon's  Tractatus  de  Po- 
testate  Papae  (see  below),  they  were  content  to  witness  anew 
to  their  assent  to  the  Augustana  and  the  Apology  by  their 
signature.  Thus  the  Confession — most  likely  on  the  text 
of  the  editio  princeps — was  again  confirmed  as  the  common 
basis  of  the  Schmalkald  League,  and,  materially  at  least,  as 
symbol  of  the  ecclesiastical  territories  concerned.  If  then  the 
Confession  was  not  amplified,  the  supposition  can  at  least 
not  be  set  aside,  that  the  desire  expressed  at  Schmalkald  to 
confirm  the  Confession  with  further  arguments  from  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Fathers  and  to  see  the  AVittenberg  Con- 
cordia acknowledged  besides,  may  have  helped  to  induce  Mel- 
anchthon  to  undertake  a  revision  in  this  sense  on  his  own 
part. 

This  undoubtedly  long-prepared  revision  is  the  Latin 
quarto  edition  of  1540,"  which  afterwards,  on  account  of 
the  many  alterations  contained  in  it,  received  the  name 
Tariaia.  These  alterations  are  partly  of  a  formal  nature, 
inasmuch  as  the  articles  in  the  second  part  are  placed  in  a 
better  and  more  logically  correct  order ;  partly,  however,  they 
consist   of  frequently  comprehensive   amplifications,   which 


at  the  Diet  of  Schmalkald  in  1535  :  "  Let  the  most  serene  King  promote  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  and  the  sincere  doctrine  according  to  the  manner  by  which 
the  princes  and  the  confederated  estates  confessed  it  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg 
and  guarded  it  according  to  the  Apology,  unless  perhaps,  in  the  meantime 
certain  things  from  them  by  the  common  consent  of  said  King  and  the 
princes  themselves,  will  seem  to  need  change  or  correction  from  the  Word 
of  God."— C.  R.  II,  1032. 

"  This  would  offer  a  way  to  harmonize  C.  Peucer's  oft-mentioned  remark, 
C.  H.  XXVI,  342  (Opera  Melanchthonis  Witt.  1562  praefatio),  and  Selnecker's 
remark  which  probably  rests  upon  it  (Catalogus  brevis  praecipuorum  Con- 
ciliorum,  Francof.  ad  Moen.  1571,  p.  97),  that  it  was  written  as  early  as 
1538.  But  since  both  connect  with  it  the  assertion  of  Luther's  approval,  we 
can  not  depend  much  on   it. 

'*  While  the  Apology,  which  is  again  connected  with  it,  is  denoted  as 
diligenter  recognita  (Cp.  C.  R.  XXVI,  343),  the  author  shows  neither  In  the 
title  nor  the  preface,  that  the  Augustana  is  also  revised. 


538        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

evidently  originated  from  the  desire  of  clearness  and  distinct- 
ness (while  also  making  use  of  many  statements  in  the 
Apology,  they  aim  at  greater  sharpness  in  combating  the 
Eoman  opponents  and  a  richer  Scriptural  proof  as  had  been 
desired  at  the  Schmalkald  Diet)  ;  and,  thirdly,  they  are  real 
alterations  or  at  least  softenings  of  a  dogmatic  nature.  To 
these  must  be  counted  the  amplification  of  articles  V  and 
XX,  with  the  emphasis  upon  the  necessity  of  repentance  and 
good  works,  and  that  of  article  XVIII  (de  libero  arbitrio) 
which  not  so  much  in  their  wording  as  in  connection  with  the 
changed  attitude  of  Melanchthon  in  the  later  revisions  of  the 
Loci  Communes  (since  1535)  may  be  interpreted  synergist- 
ically. 

The  special  cause  of  offence '"  later,  not  at  once,  was  the 
new  statement  of  the  X.  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Where  the  previous  statement  was:  De  coena  Domini  doccnt, 
quod  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  vere  adsint  et  distribiiantur 
vescentibus  in  coena  domini,  et  improhant  secus  docentes; 
the  statement  now  read:  De  coena  Domini  docent,  quod  cum, 
pane  et  vino  vere  exhiheantur  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi, 
vescentibus  in  coena  Domini. 

It  ought  never  to  have  been  denied  that  this  implied 
actual  alterations.  What  motives  impelled  Melanchthon  can 
be  determined  "**  neither  from  his  own  statement  nor  from 
contemporary  reports  from  the  circle  of  his  acquaintances.  A 
comparison  with  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  of  May,  1536 
{Cum  pane  et  vino  vere  et  substantial  iter  adesse,  C.  R.  Ill, 
75),  justifies  the  assumption  that  by  the  formula,  Cum  pane 
et  vino  vere  exhibeantur,  he  desired  to  yield  to  the  actually 
existing  union  with  the  Highlanders ;  but  if  at  the  same 
time  he  omitted  the  vere  et  substantialiter  adesse  and  the 


"  For  us  moderns  it  seems  strange  (though  not  so  in  the  era  of  the  Re- 
formation), how  Melanchthon  in  the  article  on  the  marriage  of  priests  so 
enlarged  the  apostrophe  to  the  Emperor  that  it  actually  constituted  an  article 
of  faith  on  the  ecclesiastical   rights    of  princes.      Cf.   also    C.   R.    Ill,    240   sqq. 

-» I  would  not  leave  without  mention,  that  it  was  asserted  afterwards  that 
Melanchthon  acted  under  the  direct  influence  of  Landgrave  Philipp,  of  Hessen. 
Thus  Selnecker  in  his  Historica  narratio  et  oratio  de  D.  D.  MartUio 
Luthero,  Lipsiee  1575.     But  no  importance  is  to  be   attached  to  this  anecdote. 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  529 

improhatio,  we  need  not  harbor  any  doubts  that  with  the 
gradually  changing  conception  in  his  mind  about  the  Lord's 
Supper  he  desired  to  leave  a  possibility  open  for  himself 
and  others  to  go  along  with  the  Swiss  theologians.  Although 
now  the  Elector  (as  reported)  already  in  1537  had  reproved 
Melanchthon's  alterations  in  the  Augustana  text  as  a  pre- 
sumption, and  even  in  those  days  everybody  in  Wittenberg 
anxiously  watched  every  variation,  it  cannot  be  proven,  that 
the  "  Variata  "  had  caused  any  offence  when  it  was  first 
published.  The  oft-time  repeated  assertion  about  Luther's 
condemnation  of  it,  as  it  was  peddled  about  later  during  the 
times  of  the  controversy  by  the  Gnesio-Lutherans,  is  not 
confirmed  by  Luther's  letters  and  other  well-authenticated  "^ 
statements  of  contemporaries.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
certainly  no  foundation  for  the  statement  that  Luther  ap- 
proved of  these  alterations,  or  that  they  were  made  with  his 
co-operation.*'  It  is  self-evident  that  Luther  knew  of  them, 
and,  with  his  wt41-known  character,  we  must  assume  that 
he  disliked  Melanchthon's  procedure  exceedingly,  but  had  to 
suffer  it,  like  many  other  things.'^ 

If  this  is  only  a  supposition,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  new 
edition  was  used  unsuspectingly  as  a  new  edition  receives 


"  Explicitly  and  impartially  examined  In  K  o  1  1  n  e  r  SymboUk  I,  237. 
Many  things  related  afterwards  probably  rest  on  faint  memories  of  the 
occurrences  of  1537.  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Martm  Luther  II,  461  sqq.  For  the  moral 
appreciation  of  the  fact  (which  can  not  be  measured  by  modern  standards), 
that  an  author  may  not  make  any  changes  in  a  production  of  his  own  that  has 
become  an  ofBcial  document,  it  must  be  said,  that  more  freedom  was  granted 
an  author  in  those  days.  This  is  proven  by  the  circumstance  to  which  no 
exception  was  ever  taken,  that  Luther  in  the  published  edition  of  the  Schmal- 
kald  Articles,  which  he  considered  though  erroneously,  to  be  a  document 
formally  adopted  by  the  Evangelical  estates,  made  amplifications    (See  below). 

''E.  g.,  C.  Peucer,  Opera  Melanchthonis,  Witteb.  1562,  Vol.  I,  prsefatio : 
"  But  there  was  a  later  confession  written  at  the  suggestion,  recognition  and 
approval  of  Luther."  Thus  also  Selnecker,  Catalogiis  ConciUoruni. 
Francof.  1571,  p.  97  :  "A  later  Augustana  Confession  reviewed  and  approved 
by   Luther,"   etc. 

^^  How  far  Luther  could  go  in  this  respect,  is  shown  among  other  things 
by  the  circumstance  that  he  speaks  of  the  articles  of  union  with  the  English 
of  1536,  which  just  recently  have  become  fully  known  to  us.  and  which 
aside  from  the  X.  article  which  can  be  understood  in  a  Romish  sense, 
moved  entirely  in  line  with  the  Variata.  in  his  letter  to  the  Elector  (May  28th, 
1536,  De  Wette  IV,  683),  as  such  "that  will  accord  with  our  doctrine."  Cp. 
3  .   M  e  n  t  z  ,   Die    Wittenberger  Artikel   voii    1536,   Leipzig   1905. 


530        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  preference  over  against  tlie  older  one.  And  although 
John  Eck  in  the  Worms  Colloquium  of  January,  1541,  ob- 
jected to  the  alteration  of  the  original  text,  and  this  led  to 
discussions,"  in  w^hich  ^Melanchthon  declared  that  he  had 
"  made  no  changes  in  the  matter,  substance  and  meaning," 
this  attack  upon  him  made  so  little  impression  upon  him, 
that  when  a  new  edition  became  necessary  in  1542  he  made 
new  alterations,  a  thing  which  would  be  utterly  incompre- 
hensible, if  he  had  been  attacked  in  his  o^vn  camp  on  account 
of  the  alterations  in  the  edition  of  1540. 

This  state  of  affairs  changed  when  the  gradually  grow- 
ing difference  in  the  manner  of  teaching  between  Melanch- 
thon's  special  disciples  and  the  later  so-called  Gnesio-Luther- 
ans  became  more  evident  after  Luther's  death,  and  the 
unfortunate  period  which  began  with  the  battle  about  the 
Interim  more  and  more  fixed  the  gulf  between  both  parties, 
and  the  edition  of  1540  (1542)  was  elevated  to  a  party 
signal  by  the  Melanchthonians  and  the  Highland  congrega- 
tions which  were  already  influenced  by  Calvinistic  ideas. 
At  the  Augsburg  negotiations  for  peace  in  1555,  through 
which  the  Augustana  also  publicly  received  legal  standing 
in  a  formal  way,  did  the  matter  come  to  be  discussed. 

But  the  attempt  made  by  the  Catholics,  especially  Treves, 
to  exclude  the  Calvinists  and  grant  peace  only  to  the  con- 
fessors of  the  Augustana  of  1530,  was  at  that  time  repulsed 
by  all  Protestant  estates.*^  But  after  a  short  time,  amid  the 
ecclesiastical  confusion  in  Thuringia,  complaints  were  multi- 
plied that  all  kinds  of  pernicious  sects  were  entering  the 
Empire  under  the  cloak  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  And 
the  scandalous  proceedings  at  the  colloquium  of  Worms  in 
1557,  which  had  been  called  for  the  purpose  of  uniting 
Catholics  and  Protestants,  and  from  which  the  Protestant 


"  C.  R.  IV,  34  sqq.  Hortleder  Von  den  Ursachen  des  Teutschen 
Krieges,  etc.      Book  I,  p.   177. 

"*  Cp.  L.  Schwabe,  Kursachsen  u.  d.  Augsburger  Religionsfriede  in 
Neues  Archiv  f.  sachs.  Geschichte.  X.  Bd.  p.  221.  G  .  Wolf,  Der  Augsburger 
Religionsfriede.    Stuttgart    1890,    pp.    47,    61. 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  531 

parties  mutually  strove  to  exclude  each  other,  and  at  which 
the  Jesuit  Canisius,  not  uninfluenced  by  their  mutual  accusa- 
tions, already  spoke  of  a  pure  and  an  impure  Augustana  '^ 
actually  forced  an  explanation  of  the  subject. 

At  the  Naumburg  Diet  of  Princes  in  1561,  which  was  to 
prepare  a  new  common  utterance  in  view  of  the  newly  con- 
vening Tridentine  Council,  this  question,  too,  was  to  be 
settled  by  a  new  subscription  to  the  Confession.  The  re- 
sult of  the  wearisome  negotiations,  during  which  the  en- 
deavor to  retain  the  wavering  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the 
Palatinate  for  Lutheranism,  led  to  many  illogical  acts,  was 
as  follows:  The  German  text  of  the  Editio  princeps  was 
subscribed  to  and  the  Latin  of  the  octavo  edition  of  1531. 
The  essential  reason  for  this  incongruity  lay  in  the  fact  that 
in  the  Apology,  which  was  bound  together  with  the  latter, 
the  quotations  in  tlie  first  edition  from  Vulgarius  (i.  e., 
Theophylactus)  which  were  objectionable  to  the  Palatine 
Elector  and  others,  because  they  permitted  an  interpretation 
of  the  X.  article  in  the  sense  of  Transubstantiation,  were 
omitted.'  At  the  same  time  the  declaration  was  made  in 
a  preface  to  the  Emperor,  that  they  would  abide  by  the  Con- 
fession originally  presented,  but  by  signing  the  edition  of 
1531  would  not  reject  those  of  1540  and  1542 — ^which  lat- 
ter "  was  more  explicit,  so  that  the  divine  truth  should  the 
better  be  brought  to  light,  and  faith  and  trust  in  the  satisfac- 
tion and  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  rejection  of  all 
human  tradition  and  ordinance  should  be  delivered  pure  and 
undefiled  to  posterity" — especially  since  this  edition  "was 
now  in  use  among  the  majority  of  our  churches  and  schools." 

Through  this  declaration,  which  was  influenced  by  cir- 
cumstances and  composed  by  laymen,  tlie  Yariata  was  recog- 
nized as  another  form  of  the  Confession ;  but  the  opinion 
was  contradicted,  according  to  which  the  attempt  was  being 
made  through  it  "  to  defend  another  or  new  and  unfounded 


*•  C  .    A  .    S  a  1  i  g  ,    Vollstandige    Historie    III,    308. 

'"R.   Calinich,    Der   Naumburger   Fiirstentag.    Gotha   1870.      p.    165. 


532        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

doctrine ;"  but  tlie  question,  what  to  do  in  view  of  the  really 
existing  differences,  was  evaded/* 

The  result  was,  that  the  strictly  Lutheran  Duke  Frederick 
of  Saxony,  who  had  in  vain  demanded  a  mention  of  the 
errors  that  had  arisen  against  the  Augustana  of  1530, 
seceded  and  wanted  to  abide  by  the  original  Augustana  and  its 
own  "  real  Christian  declaration  and  rule,"  the  Schmalkald 
Articles.  Xow,  almost  all  princes  present  or  their  counsel- 
lors subscribed  to  the  above-mentioned  preface;  but,  under 
the  influence  of  their  theologians,  they  gradually  withdrew 
their  signatures  and  united  with  the  declarations  of  the 
Saxon  duke,  with  the  exception  of  the  Elector  Palatine, 
who,  completely  isolated,  imited  wdth  Calvinism  by  intro- 
ducing the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  Variata  for  a  while  enjoyed 
recognition  in  wide  territories,  through  the  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Philippicum,  a  private  undertaking  of  the  Leipzig  book- 
dealer,  E.  M.  Vogelin,  which  appeared  in  1560  in  German, 
and  soon  after  in  Latin.''  Beginning  with  a  preface  of 
Melanchthon,  dated  Sept.  29th,  1559,  resp.  Feb.  16th,  1560 
(C.  R.  IX,  929  and  1050  sqq.),  the  work  contained  only 
the  three  ancient  symbols,  and  beside  them  nothing  but  writ- 
ings of  Melanchthon,  the  Augustana,  the  Apology,  the  Con- 
fessio  Saxonica  of  1551,  the  Loci,  the  Examen  Ordinandorum, 
the  Responsio  ad  Articulos  Bavaricae  inquisitionis  and  the 
Refutatio  Serveti,  to  which  was  added  in  the  Latin  editions 
the  Responsio  de  controversia  Stancari. 


=*  H  e  p  p  e  '  s  assertion  (Gesch.  d.  deutsch.  Prot.  Marburg,  1852  I,  406, 
and  again  in  :  Die  Konfess.  Entwicklung  der  altprot.  Kirche  Deutschlands. 
Marburg  1854.  p.  169),  that  the  Variata  was  at  that  time  recognized  as  an 
authentic  interpretation  and  Melanchthon's  theology  was  exalted  to  front 
rank,  needs  no  further  disproof.  Just  as  erroneous  is  C  a  1  i  n  i  c  h  ,  Naum- 
burger  Furstentag,  p.  175,  that  it  was  not  clear  to  the  princes,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Frederick  of  the  Palatinate  and  John  Frederick,  that  there  existed  prin- 
cipal differences  between  the  various  editions.  There  had  been  negotiations 
enough   on    that   point. 

^  The  first  German  edition  is  entitled :  Corpus  Doctrinae  Christianse.  d.  1. 
gantze  Summa  der  rechten  waren  Christlichen  Lehre  des  heiligen  Evangelii.  .  . 
in  etliche  Biicher  verfasset  durch  den  ehrwiirdigen  Herren  Phil.  Melanchthonem 
etc.   (the  complete  very  long  title  in  C.  R.  XXII,   35;   Latin  XXI,  587). 


^  TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  533 

In  this  the  German  text  contained  the  Augustana  of  1533, 
while  the  Latin  edition  offered  a  mixed  text,  giving  with 
every  article  the  later  recension  of  1540  (resp.  1542)  first, 
and  the  original  one  after.  This  book  of  instruction,  of  which 
a  number  of  editions  soon  became  necessary,  was  authorized 
by  the  church  authorities  in  Electoral  Saxony  (hence  Corpus 
Doctrina?  Misnicum),  in  1566,  and  generally  used  in  the 
schools.  In  Pomerania  it  was  authorized  in  1561,  but  in 
other  lands  only  in  such  a  form,  that  Luther's  Catechism  and 
the  Schmalkald  Articles  were  added  to  avoid  the  suspicion  of 
Philippism. 

But  there  was  a  still  larger  number  of  Corpora  Doctrinae, 
either  framed  after  the  Philippicum,  or  produced  in  opposi- 
tion to  it,  that  rejected  the  Variata  and  beside  the  Invariata 
authoritatively  spreafl  writings  and  opinions  of  Luther  as 
standards  of  instruction.'*  And  although  recognized  Luther- 
ans like  Nicholas  Selnecker  and  David  Chytraeus  then  spoke 
mildly  of  the  edition  of  1540  and  thought  to  find  in  it  no 
variation  of  the  essential  doctrine,"  yet  others  attacked  it  all 
the  more  violently  and  loudly,  among  which  especially  the  so 
called  Reuss  or  Reuss-Schonburg  Confession  of  1567."  The 
authors  therein  acknowledged  ^'^  the  old  true  unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession  .  .  .  which  we  hereby  distinguish  and 
separate  from  the  supposed  Augsburg  Confession  which  urns 
afterwards  in  many  places  changed,  mutilated,  misinter- 
preted, falsified  by  the  Adiaphorists  in  words  and  acts,  and 
that  simultaneously  became  a  cothurjius,  a  Bundschuh,  a 
slipper  and  a  Polish  boot,  equally  good  on  either  foot,  or  a 
cloah  or  changeling  sl-in  with  which  the  Adiaphorists,  Sacra- 
menfarians,  A7itinomists,  new  teachers  of  work-righteousness 


'"  They  are  enumerated  in  G.  Kawerau's  article :  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Prot.    Realencykl.    3.    Aufl.    Vol.    IV,    293    sqq. 

31  W  e  b  e  r  ,   II,   301   sq. 

'-  KonfessioDsschrift  etlicher  Pradikanten  in  den  Herrschaften  Greiz,  Geraw, 
Schonburg,  etc.,  1567.  Cp.  O  .  M  e  u  s  e  1  Die  Reussisch  oder  Reuss. — 
Schonb.  Konfession  von  1567  in  Beitr.  zur  sachs.  Kirchengesch.  14.  Heft. 
1899,  p.  149  sqq.,  and  Berth.  Auerbach,  Die  Reussische  Konfession 
im  Thiiringer  Kirchl.   Jahrb.   X.   Bd.    1905,    p.   I,   sqq. 


534         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

and  the  like,  under  the  semblance  and  name  of  the  true  Augs- 
burg Confession  cover,  adorn,  defend  and  confirm  their  errors 
and  falsification,  and  assert  that  they,  too,  are  adherents  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  for  this  one  reason  that  under 
its  cover  against  hail  and  rain  they  may  also  enjoy  the  com- 
mon peace  of  the  Empire,  and  may  peddle  further  and  spread 
their  errors  the  more  freely  under  the  semblance  of  friends," 
etcf 

Such  statements  could  find  willing  soil  the  more  readilv 
since  Calvin  had  repeatedly  emphasized  his  assent  to  the 
Angnstana  of  1540/*  Then  came  the  crypto-calvinistic 
disturbances  in  Saxony,  which  convinced  Elector  August 
that  the  plan  was  to  lead  him  and  his  country  into  Calvinism 
by  means  of  the  Variata/'  Tlio  final  decision  for  large  terri- 
tories came  through  the  activity  of  Jacob  Andreae,  who,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  history  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
thought,  when  all  attempts  to  effect  harmony  between  the 
controverting  parties  had  failed,  that  union  could  only  be 
brought  about  if  the  Philippists  and  the  Variata  were  sup- 
pressed. A  sermon  delivered  by  him  in  Wittenberg,  in  the 
year  1569,  was  characteristic  of  this  effort.  In  this — of 
course,  yet  with  the  opposition  of  the  students — he  inveighed 
against  the  Corpus  Philippicum  and  its  "  knaveries  and 
falsifications  of  the  Latin  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apol- 
ogy," '^  Under  these  circumstances  it  was  a  matter  of  course 
for  the  Formula  of  Concord  to  acknowledge  the  first  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  and  for  this  edition  to  appear  to  the 
Lutherans  as  the  only  genuine  one.  Hence  tlieir  effort  had  to 
be,  when  they  compiled  the  Lutheran  symbols,  to  print  the 
text  if  possible  just  exactly  as  it  had  been  presented  to  the 
Emperor  in  1530.     But  where  could  that  be  found  ? 


•^  Reussische  Konf.  according  to  the  third    (and  last,   first  paged)    edition  of 
1699,  p.   23  sq. 

»'  K  6  1  1  n  e  r  ,   241. 

"R  .    C  a  1  i  n  i  c  h  ,    Kampf    u.    Untergang    des    Melanchthonismus    in    Kur- 
sachsen,   etc.,   Leipzig,    866. 

"Leonhardt    Hutter,    Concordia    Concors,    Witeb.    1614,    p.    410    sq. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  535 

THE  OKIGINAL   MAXUSCRIPTS. 

The  old  tradition  that  the  German  copy  of  Albrecht  of 
Mayence  was  deposited  in  the  imperial  chancery  at  Mayence 
must  be  considered  correct.  There  is  documentary  proof 
that  John  Eck,  when,  on  Dec.  4:th,  1540,  he  demanded  permis- 
sion to  compare  the  Mayence  copy  with  the  Variata,  was 
granted  the  privilege."  Probably  it  never  returned  to 
Mayence  and  was  lost  at  that  time,  for  according  to  the  re- 
searches of  G.  G.  Weber"*  it  may  be  considered  established 
that  when,  in  1545,  it  was  necessary  to  send  away  the  Augs- 
burg religious  documents  for  the  use  of  the  Tridentine  Coun- 
cil, it  was  no  longer  there.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that 
this  was  not  readily  admitted  at  the  imperial  chancery. 

Thus  it  happened  that  when  Elector  Joachim  II.,  in  1566, 
to  obtain  the  genuine  text  had  his  court-preacher  George 
Coelestin  and  the  counsellor  of  the  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg 
Andreas  Zocli  prepare  a  copy  of  the  original  manuscript  sup- 
posed to  be  at  Mayence,  the  copy  of  a  poor  copy  (probably 
antedating  the  presentation  of  the  Augustana)  was  presented 
them  as  an  authentic  text  (likely  without  their  knowledge). 
This  then  was  received  int-o  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Branden- 
burgicum  as  authentic  in  1572,  and  printed  separately"  by 
Chytrieus  (1576)  and  again  by  Colestin,  (1576  and  1577). 

It  was  thought  that  this  text  must  be  made  the  foundation, 
and  after  Elector  August  of  Saxony  in  1576  had  obtained  a 
new  certified  copy  of  the  Mayence  text,  which  of  course 
agreed  essentially  with  the  one  previously  obtained,  this  re- 
cension was  made  the  basis  of  the  German  text  of  the  Book 
of  Concord. 

According  to   all  this,  which   was   only  gradually  deter- 


8'  Cp.  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Neue  Auffustanastudien,  p.  739.  There  also  on  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Eck,  because  he  wished  to  compare  the  manuscript  with  the 
Latin  Variata,  supposed  the  Latin  manuscript  to  be   in  Mayence. 

^'  Kritische   Gesch.   d.   Augsb.   Konfession.    II.   Preface. 

"  A    description    and    valuation    of    these    editions    in    Weber    I,    121    sqq. 


536        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

mined  "  by  careful  research,  which  need  not  be  detailed  here, 
this  text  with  its  many  errors,  omissions  and  sentences  warped 
by  transpositions  has  very  little  claim  to  come  near  the 
original;  but  by  its  reception  into  the  Book  of  Concord  it 
became  the  Textiis  receptus  and  has  remained  so  to  the 
present  day. 

The  Latin  original,  too,  must  be  considered  lost  forever,  and 
unfortunately  not  one  of  the  many  copies  caused  to  be  made 
by  the  Emperor  and  Cardinal  Campeggi  immediately  after 
the  presentation  has  come  to  light  again ;  but  we  know  at 
least  a  little  more  as  to  its  whereabouts."  It  was  in  its  day 
deposited  in  the  imperial  archives  at  Brussels.  There  it  was 
examined  in  1502  by  William  Lindanus,  Bishop  of  Roer- 
mund  (j  as  Bishop  of  Ghent,  Nov.  2nd,  1588),  in  company 
with  Joachim  Hopper,  afterward  state  secretary  for  Xether- 
land  affairs  in  ]\Iadrid,  and  compared  with  the  edition  of 
1531.  As  late  as  1569  it  was  still  there  in  the  keeping  of  the 
highly  esteemed  member  of  the  Staats-rat  Viglius  Zuichem. 
Then  King  Pliilip  of  Spain,  having  learned  of  the  story  first 
brought  up  by  Lindaiuis  as  it  appears  and  considered  cred- 
ible, that  the  Augustana  original  preserved  in  Brussels  was 
written  by  the  hand  of  Melanclithon,"  on  Feb.  18th,  1569,  gave 
conmiand  to  Duke  Alba  to  seize  the  Book  of  the  Confession  *^ 
lest  "they  (the  damned)  consider  it  a  Koran,"  to  "take  it 
with  you  when  by  a  favorable  chance  you  return  to  this 
country,  and  you  shall  take  care  lest  they  give  you  a  copy  for 
the  original,  and  that  no  copy  remain,  not  even  a  trace  of  it, 
so  that  such  a  destructive  work  may  be  destroyed  for  ever." 

That  Viglius  Zuichem  thereupon  surrendered  his  precious 
document  to  the  Duke,  is  attested  by  liimself  in  a  letter  to 

■"'Weber:  also  the  good  review  of  the  literary  transactions  of  the  18th 
Century   in  O.  Zoekler,   Die  Augsb.   Konfession,   p.    74  sqq. 

••'  K  o  1  d  e  ,  Neue  Augustanastiidien,   p.    740    sqq. 

*- William  Lindanus,  Apologeticum  ad  Germanos  etc.  Antverpiae 
1568.  Vol.  Ill,   p.  92.     Concordia  Discors  etc.     Coloniae  1583,   p.   185. 

*^  The  other  view  in   Neue  Augustanastudien,   p.    737. 

**  The  Spanish  original  of  this  letter  in  J.  Dollinger,  Beitrage  zur 
politishen,  Kirchl.  u.  Kulturgesch.  der  sechs  letzten  Jahrhunderte.  Regensburg 
1862.  Vol.  I,  p.  648. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  537 

Joachim  Hopper,"  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  Alba,  when  he 
returned  to  Spain  in  loTo,  took  the  Latin  original  of  the 
Augustana  with  him,  and  that  there  the  wish  of  the  king  to 
have  it  destroyed  entirely  was  complied  with. 

It  is  striking  that  although  Liudanus  in  1568  treated  of 
the  treasure  at  Brussels,  people  in  Germany  thought  they  must 
look  in  Maintz  also  for  the  Latin  original,  and  Colestin  even 
claimed  to  have  found  the  genuine  text  there.  But  he  was 
not  trusted,  and  when  Elector  August,  on  the  foundation  of  a 
personal  inquiry  with  Elector  Daniel  of  Maintz,  was  prob- 
ably confirmed  in  his  suspicion  against  Colestin's  copy,**  the 
compilers  of  the  Book  of  Concord  refrained  from  basing  any- 
thing on  a  manuscript  text.  Privato  et  festlnanti  instituto 
Selnecker,  as  he  himself  acknowledges,*'  even  because  the 
rather  rare  quarto  edition  could  not  be  obtained,  set  up  the 
octavo  edition  of  1531  as  authentic  or  editio  princeps;  but 
in  the  second  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  he  replaced  it 
by  the  real  editio  princeps,  i.  e.,  the  quarto-edition  of  the 
spring  of  1531.  In  this  form  the  Latin  recension  has  main- 
tained its  place  as  normal  text  in  all  editions  of  the  Book 
of  Concord  up  to  the  present. 


SUMMARY  AXD  ARGiniEXT, 

AS   BEARIXG    OX   THE    COXFESSIOXAL 

QHESTIOX. 

(essay  by  t.  e.  s.) 

After  June  25th,  1530,  the  two  originals  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  were  in  the  hand  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 
Its  publication  was  forbidden  by  the  same  authority.     Its 


*°  Viglii  Zuichem   ab   Aytta    epistolae    ad    virum    Joaehimum    Hopperum    etc. 
Leonardiae    1661,   p.    143.        Reprinted   in    Neue   Augustanaatudien,    p.    744    sq, 

*«Cp.  Z.   K.   G.   IV,   626. 

♦'  In   the   Pustfatio   of   the   edition    of   the    Latin    Book    of   Concord,    of    1584. 


538         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

authors,  including  Luther,  laid  chief  stress  on  its  vocal  de- 
liverance as  a  public  act  of  Confession,  and  a  more  perma- 
nent preservation  or  publication  was  not  premeditated  by 
them. 

As  not  only  their  Faith,  but  their  lives  and  their  fortunes 
seemed  to  be  at  stake,  the  events  of  the  moment,  the  expec- 
tancy of  a  Roman  Confutation,  the  Compromise  Measures, 
and  the  Defense,  or  Apology,  of  the  Confession,  with  a  grow- 
ing desire  to  get  away  from  their  prison-position  in  Augs- 
burg, so  occupied  their  attention,  that,  as  they  departed  one 
after  another,  each  prince  took  with  him  for  future  use  or 
preservation  only  such  a  copy  of  the  Confession  as  he  hap- 
pened to  already  possess,  dating  from  the  period  before  the 
final  changes,  when  others  than  the  Elector  were  admitted  to 
participation  in  the  coming  Confession. 

Thus  the  failure  to  supply  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  the 
realm  and  the  future  Lutheran  Church  of  the  world  with  a 
standard  copy,  transcribed  from  the  originals,  of  its  birth- 
right charter,  for  which  its  principals  had  imperiled  their 
lives  and  their  all  in  withstanding  the  final  Rescript  of  the 
Emperor  at  Augsburg,  and  by  which  they  had  forever  de- 
feated his  policy,  and  foiled  the  compact  between  Rome  and 
the  imperial  power  at  Bologna,  rests,  so  far  as  there  is  any 
responsibility  connected  with  it,  on  the  Emperor  himself, 
on  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  on  jMelanchthon. 

Melanchthon's  portion  of  the  responsibility  was  not  that 
he  failed  to  duplicate  the  originals  in  a  faultless  transcript 
just  prior  to  the  Confession's  Delivery,  but  it  lay  in  two  other 
acts.  The  first  of  these  was  that  he  left  both  the  Emperor 
and  the  Legate  under  the  impression  that  no  Confession  would 
be  produced.  He  left  them  under  the  impression  that  a 
short  private  agreement,  conceding  almost  everything  to 
Rome,  would  be  arranged  through  himself.  When  then  the 
Emperor  found  that  this  was  not  the  case,  that  he  had  been 
deceived,  and  that  the  Lutherans  would  insist  on  producing 
a   Confession  after  all,   he   demanded  it   immediately,   and 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  539 

barely  allowed  time  for  even  the  original  copies  to  be  pre- 
sentably  engrossed. 

The  second  reason  why  Melanchthon  was  responsible  is 
that,  during  the  negotiations  with  the  Legate,  for  a  period 
of  a  week  before  the  Delivery  of  the  Confession,  he  cast 
its  further  preparation  aside,  since  its  presentation  did 
not  meet  with  his  approval  and  would  not  in  his  judgment 
occur.  AVhon  this  ])lan  was  reversed  by  the  Elector  and  the 
Estates,  he  was  caught  so  short  by  the  Emperor's  demand, 
and  continued  to  be  so  busy  up  to  the  last  hour  in  making 
changes  of  greater  mildness  toward  Rome,  that  the  idea  of  a 
Lutheran  official  duplicate,  if  it  occurred  to  him,  could  not 
be  carried  out. 

The  Emperor's  part  in  preventing  an  official  copy  was  that 
he  forbade  the  publication  of  the  Confession  after  its  De- 
livery, and  the  Lutherans  were  so  loyal  to  him  and  so  busy 
in  the  further  progress  of  affairs  that  they  unconsciously 
or  deliberately  delayed  the  matter  of  publication  for  many 
months,  until  the  various  personalities,  documents,  and  early 
transcripts  centreing  in  their  presence  at  the  Diet  had  been 
scattered. 

It  was  not  before  November  that  publication  was  provided 
for,  although  the  document  had  been  delivered  in  June.  The 
fact  is  that  the  Evangelicals  were  driven  to  publication, 
notwithstanding  the  imperial  command,  because  the  market 
had  been  flooded  with  unauthorized  and  faulty  prints  of  the 
Confession.  While  the  Diet  was  in  session,  the  German  text 
of  the  Confession  had  been  printed,  probably  in  Switzerland, 
with  many  mistakes.  Thus  tlie  trouble  concerning  the  text- 
ual Variata  arose  from  an  act  of  the  Highlanders.  In  the 
course  of  the  year,  five  such  incorrect  and  unauthorized  edi- 
tions of  the  German  text,  and  one  of  the  Latin,  followed. 

These  were  the  reasons  for  the  confusion  in  the  early 
prints  of  the  Augustana ;  and,  in  this  situation,  Melanchthon 
did  the  right  thing,  when,  some  time  in  November,  he  super- 
intended the  printing  of  an  authorized  edition  of  the  Au- 


540        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

gustana  in  Wittenberg,  in  the  German  and  Latin  texts,  to 
be  followed  and  bound  up  with  the  Apology,  and  which 
became  the  Editio  Princeps  of  1531."  The  several  forms 
of  this  Editio  Princeps  are  well  accounted  for  by  Weber. 
For  the  relation  of  the  Latin  and  German  texts  of  this 
edition,  and  their  relation  to  the  German  text  in  the  Book 
of  Concord,  see  Kolde  earlier,  and  Weber  later  in  this 
chapter. 

The  third  fact  responsible  for  the  failure  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  to  possess  a  faultless  copy  of  the  original  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  is  the  craftiness  of  certain  members 
of  the  Roman  Church.  Rome  controlled  both  of  the  orig- 
inals of  the  Confession,  though  both  were  state  documents. 
The  German  original  disappeared  from  the  chancellery  at 
Maintz  between  the  time  when  John  Eck  examined  it  in 
1541,  for  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  original  with  ]\Ie- 
lanchthon's  Variata  of  1540,  and  the  year  1545,  when  it  was 
to  have  been  sent  with  other  relevant  documents  to  the 
Council  of  Trent.  The  Latin  original  lay  in  the  archives  at 
Brussels  as  late  as  1569,  and  was  taken  subsequently  by  the 
Duke  of  Alba  to  Sj^ain,  and  doubtless  destroyed. 

But  though  the  Lutheran  Church  is  thus  without  a  fault- 
less original  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  it  is  not  without 
a  Textus  Receptus,  a  standard,  authorized,  and  approved 
First  Edition;  and  in  which  all  agree,  both  the  original 
signers  and  survivors,  the  contemporaries,  and  subsequent 
scholarship,  that  there  are  no  changes  in  substance  from  the 
original,  and  that  whatever  the  variations  may  be,  they  are 
textual.  The  existence  of  hundreds  of  variants,  concern- 
ing which  it  can  probably  never  be  decided  as  to  what  pre- 
cisely the  original  contained,  even  though  many  of  these 
variants  are  found  in  the  Textus  Receptus,  or  Editio  Prin- 


*'  It  probably  would  be  putting  the  case  more  exactly  to  say  that  Melanch- 
thon,  on  behalf  of  the  Reformers,  was  interested  in  giving  to  the  world  the 
Apology  for  the  Confession,  which  was  the  official  reply  to  the  Confutation,  but 
which  the  Emperor  had,  at  the  instigation  of  Ferdinand,  refused  to  receive ; 
and  which  needed  the  Confession  itself  to  appear  with  it  as  a  starting-point 
and  a  basis  ;  iu  addition  to  the  reason  given  above. 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  541 

ceps,  itself,  does  not  destroy  the  authority  or  the  fixed  char- 
acter of  the  substance  and  the  form  of  the  Confession  itself. 
The  work  of  Tschackert  itself  is  subject  to  this  principle. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  in  the  situation  of  a  great 
many  famous  historical  documents.  It  was  not  inspired, 
either  in  origin  or  in  preservation,  and  is  subject  to  the  im- 
mediate course  of  historical  law.  So  far  as  a  standard  text 
is  concerned,  it  is  not  as  badly  off  as  the  Holy  Scripture, 
which  is  inspired,  and  of  which,  while  we  admit  that  there 
are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  variants  in  the  texts,  we  do  not 
admit  that  there  are  Yariata  in  the  versions  and  editions. 

The  original  manuscripts  of  the  Scripture  have  all  disappeared.  Many  of 
the  Old  Testament  rolls  were  destroyed  during  the  Jewish  exiles  and  persecutions. 
Of  the  later  manuscripts  that  remain  there  are  no  less  than  1800  or  1400,  and 
they  are  mediaeval.  The  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  also  suffered 
in  the  early  Christian  persecutions,  but  we  still  have  more  than  125  Uncials  and 
2500  Cursives,  the  oldest  of  the  Uncials  dating  hack  only  to  the  Fourth  Century. 

The  difference  between  a  version  full  of  variants,  and  a 
Variata  Edition,  is  that  the  mistakes  in  the  first  case  were 
unintentional,  and  that  in  the  second  case  the  mistakes  are 
not  unintentional,  but  are  intentional  changes  in  an  histor- 
ically accepted  document.  If  a  scholar  in  the  Roman  church 
should  discover  a  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  full  of  variant 
readings  and  publish  it,  it  would  be  a  variant  edition ;  but 
if  he  should  himself  make  ever  so  small  changes  for  the 
purpose  of  influencing  the  standard  in  a  question  of  disputed 
doctrine,  it  would  be  a  Variata  Edition.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  two,  as  can  readily  be  seen,  is  not  only  very  clear, 
but  also  very  important. 

By  the  "  text "  of  an  historical  document  the  total  con- 
tents of  any  particular  copy  or  family  of  copies  of  the  docu- 
ment is  meant.  The  ascertainment  of  the  true  text  of  any 
great  historical  document,  where  the  original  no  longer  ex- 
ists, is  generally  attended  with  great  difficulties  so  far  as 
details  are  concerned,  yet  it  is  usually  accomplished  so  far 

as  the  fixed  form  on  the  whole,  and  the  complete  substance 
38 


542         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS, 

of  the  truth,  are  concerned.  There  is  no  special  providence 
which  protects  the  documents  and  the  printing  of  even  the 
Scriptures  from  variants. 

Obscure  letters,  unintentional  omissions  by  scribes,  or  the  inclusion  of  a  note 
or  a  correction  written  in  the  margin,  or  undesigning  insertions  in  a  text  for  sup- 
posed completeness,  an  abbreviation  made  by  the  copyist  because  he  deems  it  im- 
portant to  economize  space,  a  greater  or  a  less  realization  of  the  worth  of  literal 
exactness  in  copy,  cause  variations  in  everything  that  is  re-written  by  the  hand  of 
man.  With  all  our  modern  skill  applied  to  the  securing  of  mechanical  accuracy, 
there  are  very  few  letters  written  to-day,  and  almost  no  books  printed,  which  are 
absolutely  accurate. 

But  to  confuse  unintentional  mechanical  or  editorial  devi- 
ation in  various  editions  of  a  work  with  variations  which  are 
nu\de  under  the  influence  of  a  purpose,  or  which  result  in  a 
deflection,  however  slight,  from  the  truth  of  the  original,  is 
neither  historical  nor  just.  Melanchthon  himself  (and  other 
persons  mentally  constituted  as  he  was)  did  not  see  this 
point.  His  pragmatic  instincts  were  so  great,  as  we  are  driven 
to  show  in  our  discussion  of  the  ]\Ielanchthonian  tempera- 
ment, that  lie  did  not  hesitate  to  interfere  with  and  modify  ob- 
jective standards  for  the  purpose  of  "  improving "  them 
into  accordance  with  his  own  more  recently  gained  ideas 
or  objects.  His  variations  in  the  "  Loci,"  which  was  his 
own  personal  w^ork  of  doctrine,  and  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, which  was  the  Church's  bfiicial  creation  and  posses- 
sion, went  hand  in  hand.  The  strange  thing  is,  as  Melanch- 
thon made  his  changes  in  the  Confession  in  all  innocency, 
that  he  did  not  indicate  Avhat  he  had  done  to  the  official 
work  in  the  title.  Thus  we  find  in  the  edition  of  1540  that 
he  announces  revision  in  his  Apology,  but  fails  to  announce 
it  in  the  Confession.  Kolde  puts  this  fact  very  forcibly 
when  he  says ; — 

''  While  the  changes  in  the  edition  of  the  Augustana  of 
1533,  as  well  as  those  undertaken  in  the  following  editions, 
are  of  no  importance  dogmatically,  this  is  not  the  case  in  the 
new  Latin  quarto  edition  of  1540.     Although  tlie  author  in 


TEXTS  AND   VARIATA.  543 

no  wise  prepares  the  reader  for  it, — the  Apology  bound  in 
the  same  edition  is  characterized  as  diligenter  recogniia 
(there  is  no  such  characterization  in  the  Augustana), — this 
edition,  which  well  receives  the  name  Variata,  shows  that 
it  is  partly  a  new  elaboration  with  very  weighty  changes."  ** 

It  is  quite  true  that  a  consciousness  of  historical  ac- 
curacy, judged  by  strict  standards,  was  more  or  less  dim 
in  the  minds  of  all  the  Reformers,  and  that  between  the 
years  1535  and  1540  they  not  only  allowed  but  suggested 
various  expansions  and  improvements  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  in  the  Schmalkald  Articles;  but  if  their  con- 
science was  primitive  in  this  historical  technicality,  it  was 
true  and  strict  morally.  They  never  contemplated  any 
clianges  of  doctrinal  basis  or  Confessional  principle,  but  only 
a  more  full  explanation  and  maintenance  of  the  same  real 
and  identical  principle. 

And  though  Melanchthon  denied  before  Eck,  that  he  had 
made  any  changes  of  substance  in  his  Variata  of  1540,  this 
denial  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  just  and  accurate  judg-ment 
of  his  work,  for  the  reason  that  throughout  his  life  he  was 
given  to  pragmatic  formulation  of  statement  in  the  interests 
of  the  immediate  object  to  be  subserved,  and  was  not  chiefly 
concerned  with  the  exact  presentation  of  historical  fact 
unfavorable  to  himself  or  to  his  position. 

When  we  consider  Melanchthon's  persistent  attempts  at 
variation  in  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  and  the  lessons  he  had 
been  taught  there  by  his  sad  experience  in  the  deliberations 
of  the  Evangelical  party,  and  through  the  warnings  in  the 
letters  of  Luther;  and,  when,  futhermore,  we  recall  the 
weight  with  which  the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  regarded  at  Augsburg,  so  that,  as  Cyprian  tells 
us,  the  Elector  was  chiefly  concerned  that  this  article  might 
appear  in  right  form,  and  that,  despite  all  the  threats  and 
pleadings  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  the  article  was  written  to  ex- 


**  "  Augsburg    Confession,"    in   Herzog-Hauc'k, 


544        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

elude  any  possible  iDartieipation  in  it  by  the  Highlanders; 
and  when,  further,  we  recall  the  history  immediately  be- 
hind the  Augsburg  Confession,  of  which  the  Schwabach  and 
the  Marburg  articles  were  the  visible  testimony,  we  cannot 
fail  to  see  how  great  was  the  responsibility  which  Melanch- 
thon  took  in  giving  to  the  Lutheran  Church  a  Varialia 
Edition,  in  addition  to  the  standard  edition  and  all  the 
textual  variants  that  had  hitherto  obtained/" 

The  passing  of  years  and  the  change  of  circumstances  be- 
tween 15.j0  and  1540  had  cast  upon  the  principles  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  a  changed  shading  and  perspective, 
but  not  a  different  value.  It  was  quite  natural,  therefore, 
that  when  Melanchthon  sought  to  bring  up  the  Confessional 
document  and  teaching  of  past  years  to  conformity  with  the 
demands  of  the  present  age,  by  newly  revised  and  improved 
editions,  there  wonld  be  so  much  that  seemed  helpful  and 
instructive,  especially  to  the  rising  generation,  which  en- 
joys books  that  are  up-to-date,  that  the  newer  works  of  Me- 
lanchthon should  be  preferred  to  the  older  ones,  which  no 
longer  corresponded  precisely  to  the  temper  of  the  moment ; 
and  that  even  changes  of  substance  were  more  or  less  laxly 
regarded,  for  the  time  being,  because  of  the  supposed  ad- 
vantage accruing  from  the  newer  work  on  the  whole. 

But  though  the  majority  were  carried  away  by  this  point 
of  view,  and  did  not  think  of  raising  objection  to  the 
changes  made  in  doctrine  in  the  Variata,  there  were  two 
classes  of  individuals  who  could  not  fail  to  be  affected  by 


""  Plitt  puts  the  Lutheran  position  strongly,  as  follows:  "As  Melanchthon 
has  continued  to  make  changes  in  both  works  up  to  the  moment  of  printing,  so 
he  did  not  cease  in  new  editions  ;  and  as  he  thought  to  improve,  although  his 
works  had  not  indeed  become  public  writings,  this  was  at  first  allowed  him,  since 
he  always  explained,  and  we  may  be  sure  out  of  an  honest  heart,  that  his 
changes  did  not  concern  the  meaning,  but  the  expression.  This  also  was  to  have 
been  the  ease  in  the  change  which  he  made  in  1540,  and  especially  in  the  X. 
Article  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  soon  others  attempted  to  make  this  new 
setting  authoritative  in  the  sense  of  divergent  teaching  against  the  original 
text  and,  since  it  was  the  later  text,  to  set  it  up  as  the  decisive  one.  This 
led  to  a  conflict  concerning  the  Confessio  Invariata  (1530),  and  the  Variata 
(1540)  ;  and  the  more  it  appeared  that  the  latter  was  to  be  made  to  serve  a 
widespread  misuse,  the  more  decidedly  it  was  declared  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  ihis  was  the  natural  thing,  that  the  text  of  1530  was  the  decisive 
and  official  one  of  tke  Confession." 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  545 

it.  One  of  these  two  classes  was  composed  of  those  who 
had  contended  and  suffered  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,  for  the  old  })]'inci})les  held  on  to  at  Augsburg. 
Among  these,  especially,  were  the  Elector  and  Luther. 

Luther's  bearing  in  this  matter  is  a  credit  to  his  patience, 
to  his  love,  and  to  his  devotion  to  his  great  friend  and  co- 
worker Melanchthon.  His  attaclnnent  and  sympathy  for 
Melanchthon  seem  to  have  been  so  great  that  he  passed  over 
much  that  ]\relanchthon  did,  in  silence.  The  whole  plan  of 
Melanchthon  of  u])holding  the  truth  by  conference,  by  an 
arrangement,  and  by  negotiation,  and  of  seeking  to  combine 
different  parts  of  the  church  into  unity  where  there  were 
differences,  did  not  approve  itself  to  him.  He  believed  in 
full  and  open  Confession  of  the  truth,  and  in  leaving  the 
course  of  history  to  Providence.  It  was  for  this  reason, 
doubtless,  that  he  was  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the  gen- 
tleness of  the  xVugsburg  Confession  toward  Rome,  so  that 
he  spoke  of  writing  a  German  ''Apology  "  himself."  But 
the  universal  approval  which  the  Augsburg  Confession  re- 
ceived everywhere  after  its  delivery  and  the  rise  of  the 
Schmalkald  League  gave  matters  a  direction  confessionallv 
and  politically  which  caused  Luther  to  be  more  reticent. 
Yet  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  Luther  was  worried, 
though  he  restrained  himself  marvellously,  concerning  the 
Variata,  and  that  for  a  time  there  was  some  feeling,  wdiich 
did  not  come  to  words,  between  him  and  Melanchthon  on  this 
account."" 

As  for  the  new  Elector,  it  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that 
he  had  a  keen  eye  for  the  preservation  of  the  original  Con- 


"  Cji.  Kolde,  Luther,  II,   382. 

'-  The  coudemnation  of  the  Variata  by  Luther  as  circulated  by  the  Gnesio- 
Lutherans,  does  uot  find  any  confirmation  in  the  letters  of  Luther  and  other 
accredited  deliverances  of  that  time  (Kollner,  Symholik,  I,  239).  It  was 
even  approved  of  by  such  decided  Lutherans  as   Brentz    (C.   R.,   IV,   737). 

It  may  seem  strange  that  the  Variata  of  1540  caused  no  criticism  on  its  ap- 
pearance. Yet  we  must  remember  the  experience  of  1537,  when  the  rebuke 
of  the  Elector  John  met  with  no  success,  and  that  the  sympathies  of  the 
whole  rising  generation  were  with  their  popular  teacher  and  the  great  Prot- 
estant diplomat,  Melanchthon. 


546        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

fession,  and  that  already  in  1537,  lie  suggested  that  Mel- 
anchthon  be  rebuked,  and  that  he  termed  the  alteration  a  pre- 
sumj^tion.  There  is  no  doubt,  as  even  Weber  admits,  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  fact;  and  we  question  whether,  in  view 
of  the  circumstantiality  of  the  accoimt  (Kolde  cites  C.  R., 
Ill,  366),  the  Elector  knew  of  nothing  more  than  rumors.** 

The  statement  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  D.  Gregorii  Bruclcen 
Schrifften  in  unterschiedlichen  jahren  in  religionssachen. 
ergangen,  and  which  bears  the  following  title :  "  Furhaltung, 
so  Doctori  Marthino  und  Doctor!  Pomerano,  durch  Doctor 
Brucken,  in  beysein  und  in  gegenwertigkait  unsers  gene- 
digsten  Herrn  des  churfursten  zu  Sachssen  ic  zu  Witem- 
bergk  bescheen,  Sonnabendt  Nack  Cantate  Ano  Dnj 
XVXXXVij." 

The  old  document  reads  as  follows : — "  Magister  Philip 
is  said  to  have  assumed  the  authority  to  alter,  render  milder, 
and  to  print,  with  other  changes,  the  Confession,  made  by 
your  Electoral  grace,  and  the  other  princes  and  estates,  with- 
out previous  knowledge  and  consent  of  your  Electoral  grace 
and  the  others,  which  it  was  reasonably  due  that  he  should 
have  received  from  your  Electoral  grace,  since  the  Confes- 
sion emanates  principally  from  your  Electoral  grace  and 
from  the  other  estates. 

"  The  result  of  this  was  that  your  Electoral  grace  and 
the  other  estates  connected  with  you  were  charged  that  you 
are  not  sure  of  your  doctrine,  and  that  you  also  do  not  de- 
fend it  consistently,  at  which  the  people  then  take  offense. 


''  Kolde  says  :  "  Neither  can  the  objection  of  the  Elector  John  Frederick  to 
Luther  and  Melanchthon  of  May  5th,  1537,  be  adduced  as  proof  for  the 
existence  of  a  Variata  at  that  time.  He  says  there  (C.  R.,  Ill,  366)  :  ' /«  is 
also  said  that  M.  Philipp  undertook  in  several  points  to  alter,  soften  and 
publish  with  other  changes  the  Confession  made  bp  Your  Electoral  Hi'ihncss 
and  other  princes  and  estates  before  his  Imp.  Maj.  at  Augsburg.'  The  latter 
evidently  refers  to  the  fact  that  probably  without  any  doings  of  Melanchthon, 
in  the  year  1535,  a  reprint  of  the  Latin  octavo  edition  of  1531  appeared  in 
Augsburg  (now  in  the  Nuremberg  city  library),  and  a  second  one  in  Hagenau. 
And  if  the  assertion  that  Melanchthon  altered  and  softened  the  Confession 
does  not  merely  rest  on  rumors  brought  to  the  Elector,  we  may  remember 
that  at  that  time,  in  circles  unfavorably  disposed  toward  Melanchthon.  notice 
was  first  directed   toward  the  alterations   in   the  octavo  edition  of  1533." 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  547 

"  And   especially    did    your    Electoral   grace    desire    that 
both  of  these  confidential  and  necessary  announcements  to 

Wepj-.r  I. 

[  utib  Si)priantf)  jTclItfit  t\ad)htT  bai^aUnm  cnUti,  nftb 
ieigten  aii|  eitmn  jnt  J^nj^^,  ^MmmMw  %i(biy  vtrj 
^onbeiifn  ^rotocott,  ta^  l^tL^lliitfujll  nirf)t  <pipi(ippimK 
tvnd)  &en  alten  eatijfer  SBrucf  Nfpre^cn,  fciiDcvti  tag  er 
bur^   jeineii   ganjler   gtifjjer   upB.  gomcrgnp    (»   fritifr 

mil  gj^gfrtnd?f^on  bje  Ji.  ^C""^eiuilji;rt  uuu  Acnnberf. 

^g&en    foHe..    Sfuc^   ff$en   fie    &a^    §afnim    nic^t    nat^  ■ 
Dcm  Siegctifpurgft  ^oCfoquto  ins' fjo^r  1541.  tvle  5ltrd;ner, 

©cfncrfer,  S^emnttiugl  un&  aiiDevc,  fonbern  1537.  trcU  ; 

c^e^  afferDing^  &crSflc{)c  einc  gflnjanbcre  ^Dcn&utig  giebr.  i 

^S  t)at  feer  t)erbt>nf!t>ofr«  $crt  ^nfiot  ©frofcet,  mtc5  I 
tor  ejniger  3fit  um  treuc  biptomflflfclK  %h\d)xi^t  bicfti  \ 
^vofoccUd  gebeten  t  unb  fo  fc^v  ic^  V.ii*^  wuv&e  jum  25<r.'  j 
gnugcu  gemacf)t  ^oben,  5f;m  Oierin  ju  bienfii ,  fo  fonnte 
5>ama!^  ba^  ^^rcXocoH  ntcbt  aufgeftinben  tpcrbeit,  yo'h  benn 
foIcf)f^  bcr  f>err  gef)cime  ^ofrntf)  S;.  €-cfnrbt,  ali  iam' 
(igcr  51ritlyflf'»^  ^f^  f^tefigen  ^<3t'*lo()(.  5Ivcf)tDt',  ()atb«tj- 
mo{  ucrocbtid)  miffiic^en  la^cw.  (JnbHc^  fanb  ud}i  im  SWay 
uorlge^  3af)r«?  in  tiuem  ?ofnt,  n?o  man^  ntcf)f  evwatteu. 
(gg  bcfinbcf  Jt6.Uieirigjli  gonpohtt  9icf en  /  iviMc|  rnbru 
cirtiil:  ^«  (0cegom  23fucFeft  Bc^nffteiajn  rrt* 
tetfct>iet)Uc^ert  jal;ren  in-  reli^iost  fad^ett  etr^att* 
gen  ^)/  unb  f«f;rt  flu^iuenbig  bie  2IijfK()r!ft: 

Surbaltufig/  fo  ^octovj  mait^ino  nttb 
doctor)  pomerano,  outc^  ^Doctot  ^m* 
cFen ,  irt  be'f  feirt  vnt>  in  ^t^mtoeuicMt  vn* 
fete  geitetn'sfiert  .^crtrfi  ^es  d;«tfiir|iefi  3»i 


648         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

your  Electoral  grace  should  be  kept  secret  and  that  I  should 
not  say  anything  to  any  one  concerning  it  at  the  time." 

Weber  II. 


B<?n!trtbcnt»t   Had;    Catuatc  Znno   5Diij 

giiK  {^atm  ^an&, •^{e  an^  bcm  Seitniffr  f}tttit^Yt, 
100  uutcr  bcv '2>onnu!i&rc()afr  ^bitrfurjl  Slugufl^  ju.6acb; 
fen  E>a5  MeOg?  jPJeno?^ffcbf  ^rcftft?  inmmivt  math  b), 
%(^t   »er|!el)eji&e    QlurTct>rift    fo($enber<5ff!nrf   fortgeffi^rt: 

^Ijedcgcn.  <xn  .<iii£ttLjmJL  ^e»  i)cm  pi;iHppo  i>nft  jDoctcr 
(^y^t^^ij^fr  fliu^crg  thcilg  i?bcr  cftlicl>cn  QCrticCdtt^etKcngiott 
xoibn  ^ie  2(uafgur^ifd}c  donfc^iou,  irclwc  t)bilii?.  in  oieg 
I?n_puHt"tcn  gech^c^t  hrtbcu  fcUe.  3tcm  I?cl(tnflen5^e>cr 
^rijimgiveiung vreflcti  bit  '^rk^n&ht,  vnnb fccralcid)cn 
,  ^jrnflii^-fht'n  ml?cr ,  S.trattg  fcic  llni»crfi[tt!t  fpa Itunffpmt& 
X^cr^nn,^  \vi  bcfor^cntt  i^ftchcm  ^uuorl'ommcn  ^  gr  jgpc:: 
tor  ifml^ct  nebcn  Ponicratio  ir  ycttraulid?  bc^cncEcn  <tii« 
|eigmJcUctUJ»  if-  '^nmnibi<^  bcainiit  bag  ^rotpcoll  ^  tvddK^ 
«m^  8  (^ebroc^enen  goUoblatttr»  Ujit^,  niit  folgcnben  gScr^ 
tm:  jCcr  l;r.nn6cl  foUe  ^Dgctorj  tttflTtl;mo  i?nd  yomerfin» 
"^giimmaigett  feiiK  '^a  giiydan  ba^  yrotcc^fl  ()Qt  <it).- 
fcructen  (afeii,  fo  gebe  tc$  biei*  blo0  bie  <5tfUe,  btc  bie 
61.  €.  I'cfrift,  jDie  aiic^  ben  B'i^iu^  X>ti  gfirtrag^: 

6o  folt  fid?  oucb  mgflifter  PbUip  atiflemaft  b^benn, 
ilwcx  cburfl>  (](n;_gnb^bcr  ^nbcrn  .^nrfffw  rnb  P^rrnbe. 
g!onfi?fficn  /  Por  gay,  mt  ^»  ^ut^gburg  bcfcbccfL_iiL  cfi- 

53  licb<^ 

•  )  I)i«fe  2Juff{f)rift  riifjrt  eon  (ben  ter^anb  liter/  fo  ^a«  «j3rptoc»ll 
gei'cfettt&ett.  • 

4)  ^rja*  SJuUerS  Slnnalen  be;  (Jhuv.'  urb  i^firfff.  ^«uff«  ^aititv^ 
€.  167  ijl  bafi  2trd;io  com  ^a^r  157*  —  «58t  inptntirt 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  549 

"  Seckendorf  and  Cyprian  have  shown  that  the  Elector  did 
not  have  Philip  spoken  to  through  the  old  chancellor  Briick, 
but  that  he  made  an  indirect  charge  through  the  chancellor 

Weber  III. 


Mien  puncten  ^u  eti^ern ,  myltctn ,  vnb  —  anbevroeij 
bvu<$m  ^u  Igfffctt ,  onei^uer  d?urfl  an.  vnb  ber  tmi^frn 
yorwiffm  ^?nn^  bnyJUiaim^;  bee  er  f[d>  i£uer  d^rft^ 
0n,  etadjtciies  >  jc  billig  fott  erttl?altcn  l?4bcgn  -,  tladfr 
be^n  feleltoiifefftoti .  Ifuer  ^urfl«  gn.  t?nn5  bcr  Anbexn 
^tenbe  furHl;cmlid)  iff, . 

jtauon  cnevn  djmii.  flh;  pjii>  ben  anbcvn  jten  mituetg 
n\inv)tcn  6tc^l^cu  aufcrlegt  iviir5e>  ^as  g^ic  fret 
g^crc  nit  flctgi^>.  <md)  pnbcftcnfciff  it>t^grm^  jporan 
fi(^  feftn  gud)  &a8  t?oIg  crgett  — r  --. 

t)nnb  Innfohbgrhcit  bcff^crtgu  eiil-^  dmyff  flw,  fc£0^ie 
bcy&e  feicfecuer  d)urflfln.  i3ortrauetc  PWrt5  nottgcnMge 
ftnftgjfle ,  bey  ftd?  jn  ge^cim  woltcn  vnnb  niematibg 
Ijitxiion  idf  wm  nod?  $Ut  5cit  An^ftiijeH 

9ln  ber  2i'uf^cn(icifdf  bgg  sHrRfofoflg  tjlritc^t  l|u  ^ti^etf 
f(?(n,  ti)eil^  tueif  id)  ba^  ^a\>kv ,  novauf  ii  ,^e{(!i)nehef\t 
Uiib  biclSartb  bctTcn,  bcre^auf^enomuien^  noc^  nte[)rmali 
itt  SIctett  aii^  bent  fcainah'geit  ^eitaitn  iDaf)V3enommen/ 
t()ei(^  Weil  €f>urfutf{  3o^a«n  grictcid)  eigen^anbtg  !Siatr 
ginati^u  bcjU  geMii-ieDht  /i^.  &Uid>wie  «uii  ba^  (Janje  ^Jw* 
tocott/  Welc^e^maii  b^pm  Si?prian  nac&fcf;eri  faim,  (d)Ot 
net  ^e^tU^  Jut  Ql)avattetQej'(i)id)te  ef)utfurfl  ^^i^ctnn 
§i-icbtic^6ifi/  uijbyon  feiner  Feic^tglSufctgfeit  nub  gUvc^t' 
fainfeit>  ibet  dtic^  f  ifer  uttb  Jteae  fui:  bit  erfaiinte  2Ba^r< 
^cit  jeiigef/  bitf  jeboc&  nic^t  t'mmcr  mtt  ^fug^eit  un& 
^oUcif;    fPiibcrn  3mv«r(»n  mit  ^^rto   Sntolerahj  unb 

«)  Goprifltt  fagt  in  bef  (Btidiiii)U  htt  a.  €.  @. i<Jc.  bft§«if(5 
©uramasien  »en  ber  5?anb  be6  €08!j(era  55rucf^  Darin  anitw 
turn,  ^iet  ()«t  <r  Pd)  «i>ec  geirrj:  ©e«n  Sciicfend  /;an& 
k&H  i(&  3ij0t  g;fttnben. 


550        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

to  Luther  and  Pomeranus,  in  liis  presence,  because  Melancli- 
thon.  had  made  the  Augsburg  Confession  milder  and  altered 
it,  and  had  put  it  in  print  as  such  without  his  knowledge. 
They  do  not  place  the  fact  in  the  Regensburg  Colloquy  after 
1541,  as  do  Kircliner,  Selnecher  and  Chemnitz  and  others, 
but  in  1537,  which  gives  quite  another  turn  to  the  affairs." 

Weber  admits  the  authenticity  of  this  minute,  both  be- 
cause the  jDaper  and  the  handwriting  correspond  with  the 
time  from  which  they  profess  to  emanate,  and  also  because 
the  Elector  John  Frederick  annotated  the  margins  with  his 
own  hand.  Weber  also  admits  that  this  is  a  fine  contribution 
to  the  history  of  the  character  of  the  Elector  John,  it  tes- 
tifying of  his  ''  superstition  and  fear,  but  also  of  his  zeal 
and  faithfulness  for  the  recognized  truth." 

Here  is  direct  testimony  that  Melanchthon  was  blamed  by 
the  Elector  for  "  assuming  the  authority  to  alter,  render 
milder,  and  print  with  other  chancjes"  a  Confession  that  was 
not  his  own  property;  and  that  he  had  done  this  "without  the 
previous  hnowledge  and  consent  "  of  the  Elector  and  "  the 
others,"  among  whom  Luther  is  to  be  included.  Weber  is 
interested  in  showing  that  the  said  interview  did  not  take 
place  in  1541 ;  and  hence  he  is  obliged  to  admit  that  it  did 
take  place  in  1537.  It  proves  both  an  exact  knowledge,  and 
a  displeasure  on  the  part  of  the  Elector  as  early  as  this  year. 


We  have  seen  that  the  one  class  of  persons  interested  in 
keeping  the  Church  safely  anchored  on  the  doctrine  and  the 
Confession  which  had  been  gained  at  Augsburg  were  the 
original  signers  and  participants  in  it  at  the  Diet. 

The  other  class  of  persons  interested  in  the  exact  nature 
of  the  Lutheran  Confession,  and  waiting  with  eagle  eye  to 
point  out  weak  spots  and  inconsistencies  in  the  Evangelical 
Confessional  principle,  was  the  Roman  enemy.  And  so  it 
happened  that  the  original  antagonist  of  Luther  nud  his 
doctrine,  John  Eck,  had  the  satisfaction  and  the  honor  of 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  551 

pointing  out  to  the  world  and  of  publicly  awakening  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Variata  of  1540 
it  was  declaring  a  doctrine  for  which  it  had  been  unwilling 
to  stand  at  Augsburg.  This  was  denied  by  Melanchthon, 
but  various  elements  in  the  Evangelical  Church  now  began 
to  see  that  such  was  really  the  case. 

This  Confessional  discovery  came  at  a  time  when  other 
conflicts,  some  of  them  very  bitter  and  unwarranted,  and 
others  inevitable  and  based  on  the  general  situation,  were 
beginning  to  break  out ;  and  when  the  political  complications, 
arising  shortly  after  Luther's  death,  revealed  more  clearly 
than  it  is  possible  for  words  to  do,  the  need  of  a  standard 
Confession,  and  the  great  peril  in  which  the  Evangelical 
Church  was  then  being  placed  by  its  substitution  of  indefinite 
and  individual  interpretations  for  the  real  word  of  Scripture. 

The  Confessional  difficulties  brought  about  by  the  intro- 
duction of  tlie  doctrines  of  the  Variata,  which  had  slum- 
bered for  years,  sprang  up  into  the  clear  light  at  the  Col- 
loquy of  Worms  in  September,  1557;  and  all  attempts  at 
reconciling  the  Confessional  differences  failed.  The  Frank- 
furt Recess  in  March  of  the  following  year  only  served  to 
emphasize  the  sharp  contrast  that  was  already  drawn  between 
the  two  parties.  To  solve  the  problem  a  proposition  was 
made  to  hold  a  General  Synod,  but  Melanchthon  objected 
to  this  in  May,  1559,  and  Brentz  likewise  in  December  of 
the  same  year.  Then  the  Count  Palatine,  Duke  Christo- 
pher, and  the  Landgrave  Philip  made  a  proposition  to  the 
Elector  Augustus,  to  hold  a  common  meeting  of  the  German 
princes  adhering  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  together  with 
a  few  theologians,  but  this  was  also  rejected." 

In  the  midst  of  all  this  Melanchthon  died  on  the  15th  of 
April,  15  GO.  King  Ferdinand  was  casting  it  up  to  the 
Elector  Augustus  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  the  basis 
of  the   Augsburg   Confession   was   no   longer  being   taught 


KaWinch,   p.   49   sqq. 


552         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

either  in  his  university  at  Wittenberg  or  in  his  university 
at  Leipzig.  Pius  IV.  was  expected  to  reopen  the  Council 
of  Trent.  Threatening  reports  were  scattered  far  and  wide 
that  there  would  be  an  outbreak  of  a  new  religious  war  whose 
object  should  be  tlie  forcible  suppression  of  Protestantism. 
It  was  openly  declared  that  as  the  Protestants  no  longer  con- 
fessed the  original  Confession,  but  as  they  tolerated  all  sorts 
of  innovations  and  divisions  among  themselves,  they  no 
longer  possessed  a  right  to  the  concessions  made  by  the  Re- 
ligious Peace  of  Augsburg. 

Therefore  Duke  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg,  despite  the 
failure  of  previous  efforts  of  his,  on  tlie  29th  of  June,  1560, 
suggested  to  the  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate  and 
his  son-in-law  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony  the  necessity 
that  the  Protestant  j^rinces  re-confess  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion together,  and  write  a  proper  Preface  and  Conclusion 
showing  their  unity  in  such  Confession.  They  agreed  to  in- 
vite the  remaining  princes  and  estates  to  participate  in  this 
work.  All  the  estates  of  the  Augsbui-g  Confession  were  to 
solemnly  promise  to  remain  firm  and  loyal  to  the  Confession, 
and  not  to  tolerate  any  revolutionaries  or  sectarians  in  their 
countries,  and  not  to  permit  the  theologians  to  enter  into  dis- 
graceful polemics.  The  newly-subscribed  Confession  was  to 
be  delivered  to  the  Emperor. 

Duke  John  Frederick,  who  hitherto  had  been  one  of  the 
chief  obstacles  toward  union,  because  he  favored  Flacian- 
ism,  not  only  agreed  to  this  proposition,  but  expressly  de- 
clared that  ''he  desired  a  coming  together  of  the  princes; 
that  theologians  were  not  necessary  at  the  meeting,  and  that 
he  would  control  his  own  theologians  so  that  they  should  not 
write  and  scold  against  each  other.""" 

Duke  John  Frederick  then  undertook  with  Count  Pala- 
tine and  Christopher  to  win  the  Landgrave  Philip  and  the 
Elector  August  of  Saxony  for  the  project.  The  Elector 
Augustus  said  he  was  agreed,  and  remarked  that  the  coming 


^  Kugler,  II.  188  sqq. 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  558 

assembly  would  be  a  fitting  occasion  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing  concerning  a  unanimous  Confession  in  view  of 
a  future  Council  of  the  Church.  At  the  same  time  he  made 
it  a  prerequisite  that  no  other  Confession  should  be  sub- 
scribed than  the  one  handed  to  the  Emperor  in  1530,  which 
had  been  used  in  the  visitation  in  these  countries  and  upon 
which  the  former  treaties  of  peace  had  been  founded. 

Yet  he  connected  his  participation  with  the  condition,  (1) 
that  no  political  transactions  should  take  place  at  this  con- 
ference; (2)  that  there  should  be  no  condemnations  of  the 
sects.  The  Convention  at  Xaumburg  began  on  the  21st  of 
January  and  lasted  until  the  8th  of  February,  twenty-one 
sittings  in  all. 

At  the  opening  session  a  difference  occurred  between  Elector  Augustus  and 
Duke  John  Frederick  concerning  the  call  to  the  Assembly,  the  Elector  charging 
the  Duke  with  having  omitted  from  the  invitation  the  clause  which  said  that  there 
were  to  be  no  condemnations,  and  no  political  matters  discussed  at  the  Assembly. 
Duke  Christopher  brought  with  him  a  memorial  card  concerning  the  setting  up 
once  again  of  a  unanimous  Norma  Doctrinse. 

At  the  third  session,  the  Elector  Frederick  read  the  invitation  and  based  upon 
it  four  propositions  :  — 

(1)  As  the  various  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  contained  many  devi- 
ations, it  would  be  well  to  compare  the  various  editions  in  the  presence  of  all  the 
princes  and  then  to  decide  which  copy  was  to  be  subscribed. 

(2)  A  preface  should  be  prefixed  to  the  newly  subscribed  Confession  in  which 
the  occasion  should  be  clearly  explained. 

(3)  There  should  be  a  writing  or  an  embassy  to  the  Emperor  which  would 
explain  the  purpose  of  this  Diet  at  Xaumburg. 

(4)  It  should  be  considered  whether  and  in  how  far  the  remaining  estates  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  who  had  not  yet  been  invited  should  be  moved  to  a  sub- 
scription. 

The  great  question  was,  which  edition  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  should  be  subscribed.  The  Elector  Palatine  and 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  spoke  on  behalf  of  the  edition  of  1510, 
as  this  did  not  deviate  in  substance  from  the  original  edi- 
tion, but  was  composed  with  greater  clearness  and  dexterity. 
The  other  princes  were  against  this,  falling  back  upon  the 
wording  of  the  invitation,  which  declared  that  the  subscrip- 
tion was  to  be  the  Confession  that  had  been  delivered  to  the 
Emperor  in   1530.     The  Elector  of   Saxony  also  declared 


554        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

that  he  was  ready  to  agree  to  this,  on  the  condition  that  in 
the  Preface  the  harmony  of  the  later  edition  with  the  earlier 
edition  should  be  expressed. 

The  Elector  Frederick  remained  in  his  first  opinion. 
Duke  John  Frederick,  together  with  Ulrich  of  Mecklenburg 
and  the  Count  Palatine  Wolfgang,  now  declared  that  the 
Schmalkald  Articles  should  also  be  subscribed  at  the  same 
time,  but  this  proposition  found  no  response  with  the  re- 
maining princes. 

The  representatives  of  the  absent  princes  were  invited, 
after  deliberation,  to  express  their  view  of  the  proposed 
points.  The  question  concerning  the  Confession  to  be  sub- 
scribed actively  busied  the  theologians  who  had  followed 
their  princes  to  Naumburg.  David  Chytraeus,^*  who  had 
come  with  Ulrich  from  Rostock,  as  well  as  the  Saxon  theo- 
logians Morlin  and  Stossel  warned  against  the  acceptance 
of  the  later  editions  and  the  corruptions  of  Melanchthon. 
The  Jena-Lutherans  also  Avere  active  against  the  supposed 
heresies  of  Melanchthon,  and  sent  in  an  opinion  against  sub- 
scription, and  against  the  petition  for  a  General  Synod. 

In  the  fourth  sitting  the  delegates  of  the  absent  Estates 
said  they  were  authorized  to  sign  only  the  original  Augs- 
burg Confession  in  the  same  form  of  words  in  which  they 
had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor. 

Therefore  the  assembly  now  proceeded  to  a  comparison 
of  the  various  editions  that  lay  before  them,  and  first  of  all 
of  the  Latin  text." 

The  comparison  was  made  in  this  way:  the  counsellor  of 
the  Count  Palatine  read  the  copy  of  1531,  the  chancellor  of 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  repeated  the  corresponding  article  of 
the  edition  of  1542.  The  Elector  Frederick  had  the  edition 
of  1540  in  his  hand,  Duke  Christopher  had  the  copy  written 
by  the  hand  of  Brentz.     The  Saxon  chancellor  Briick  had  a 


"Salig,  III,   669  sqq. 

•'■'  Only  the  Elector  Frederick  and  the  Duke  Christopher,  and  in  part  Duke 
John  Frederick  and  the  Count  Palatine  Wolfgang  participated  personally  in 
this  matter :   the  rest  were  represented  by  their  counsellors. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  555 

supposed  original  copy  coming  from  Spalatin.  As  many 
differences  of  form  became  manifest  already  in  the  first  ar- 
ticles, it  was  resolved  to  ask  counsel  of  some  of  the  theolo- 
gians present.  At  the  fifth  sitting  the  comparison  of  the 
Latin  editions  came  to  an  end,  and  in  the  afternoon  the  Ger- 
man editions  were  collated  in  the  same  way. 

In  the  sixth  sitting  five  questions  were  set  up  for  a  discus- 
sion : — 

(1)  Whether  the  edition  of  1531  or  that  of  1540  or  1542 
should  be  adhered  to. 

(2)  Whether  the  phraseology  of  the  Tenth  Article  in  the 
edition  of  1531  contained  a  confirmation  of  the  Papal  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation. 

(3)  Whether  according  to  Article  XXIII,  it  would  be 
permissible  to  dispense  the  sacrament  in  both  forms. 

(4)  Since  Article  XXV  said  "  The  mass  is  retained 
among  us,"  the  Elector  Frederick  said  he  could  not  sign, 
since  in  the  Palatinate  the  mass  and  all  Papal  ceremonies 
had  been  abolished. 

(5)  W^hether  in  the  new  Preface,  in  place  of  the  Schmal- 
kald  Articles,  the  Saxon  Confession  of  Melanchthon,  which 
stood  in  the  Corpus  Doctrinse  Sax.,  should  not  be  mentioned, 
and  the  articles  of  the  sacrament,  the  procession  and  mass 
should  be  briefly  explained. 

In  the  seventh  session  the  question  came  up  as  to  what 
copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  should  be  subscribed.*^ 

The  Elector  Frederick  voted  for  the  subscription  of  the  Latin  and  German 
text  of  1540  "since  this  according  to  its  meaning  was  not  only  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Confession  delivered  over,  but  also  explained  it  more  fully  ;  but  in  the  preface 
certain  necessary  opinions  were  to  be  noted." 

The  Elector  Augustus  would  likewise  have  been  for  the  Confession  of  1540, 
as  this  was  composed  in  the  lifetimes  of  the  Elector  John  Frederick,  Luther  and 
Melanchthon,  since  it  accorded  with  the  true  sense  of  the  Confession  of  1530,  and 
since  it  had  been  used  m  church,  school  and  house  without  a  doubt ;  but  as  the 
invitation  and  the  instruction  of  the  delegates  limited  them  to  the  Confession  of 
1530  and  as  the  religious  peace  was  founded  upon  the  Confession  given  over  to  the 
Emperor,  he  was  in  favor  of  subscribing  to  the  edition  of  1531  as  being  of  nearest 


'*  Kluckhohn,  Brief  e^  I,   158   sqq. 


556         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

form  to  the  original ;  but  in  the  preface  the  Confession  of  1540  should  be  men- 
tioned as  an  explanation  of  the  previous  Confession. 

The  delegates  of  the  Elector  of  Brandenberg  voted  in  the  same  way. 

The  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony  would  have  preferred  subscription  to  the 
Latin  and  Oerman  texts  that  he  had  brought  with  him  and  reported  to  have  come 
from  Spalatin,  but  as  the  princes  and  delegates  did  not  credit  any  authority  to  it, 
he  was  satisfied  with  subscribing  the  printed  copy  of  the  year  1531,  "together  with 
the  Apology  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  the  mention  of  the  Locupletirten 
Confessions  in  the  preface." 

For  the  editions  of  1531  Count  Palatine  Wolfgang,  Mecklenburg,  Wiirtem- 
berg,  Hesse,  Baden,  etc.,  voted.     The  discussion  was  not  ended. 

On  Jaunarj  28tli  in  the  eighth  sitting,  although  the 
Elector  Frederick  attempted  to  force  his  demand  through, 
the  Confession  of  1531  was  adhered  to,  but  now  there  was 
still  a  difference  as  to  whether  the  Apology,  and  the  Schmal- 
kald Articles  were  to  be  added  as  Christian  explanations,  or 
whether  the  Saxon  Confession  and  the  Frankfurt  Recess 
shonld  be  added  as  such,  and  as  to  whether  explanations 
concerning  the  Lord's  Snpper  and  the  mass  shonld  be  given. 

On  January  2Sth,  a  compromise  was  arranged.  The 
Schmalkald  Articles  were  withdrawn  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  Saxon  Confession  and  the  Frankfurt  Recess  on  the  other. 
Onlv  the  recognition  of  the  Apology  and  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  1540  should  be  mentioned  in  the  preface. 
The  two  Electors  were  charged  with  tlie  drawing  up  of  the 
Preface,  the  counsellors  and  theologians  of  the  three  Elec- 
tors were  to  make  a  still  more  exact  comparison  of  the  Latin 
and  German  copies  which  had  been  selected  for  subscrip- 
tion; for  tlie  German  Confession  the  text  of  the  quarto  of 
1531  was  selected,  for  the  Latin  the  text  of  the  octave  edi- 
tion of  1531,  which  omitted  the  quotations  in  the  Apology 
from  Theophylact  that  permitted  Art.  X  to  be  interpreted 
in  the  sense  of  Transubstantiation. 

By  the  morning  of  January  29tli  the  collating  of  both  edi- 
tions was  finished.  On  the  afternoon  of  January  29th  the 
new  Preface,  which  with  the  newly  subscrilied  Confession, 
was  to  be  handed  to  the  Emperor,  was  reported  to  be  sub- 
scribed.    The  Estates  defended  themselves  in  this  Preface 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  557 

against  the  imjjiitation  that  they  had  departed  from  the 
original  Augsburg  Confession,  or  were  no  longer  in  unity  in 
the  explanation  of  the  same.  On  the  contrary  they  had  re- 
ferred to  this  Confession  continually  at  the  Diets,  as  well 
as  to  the  Scripture,  last  of  all  in  1559  at  Augsburg,  and  had 
again  compared  the  same.  It  is  true  that  the  Confession 
of  1540  and  1542  was  composed  in  a  somewhat  more  ex- 
tended manner,  and  was  explained  upon  the  basis  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures;  yet  they  woidd  abide  by  the  Confession 
of  1530,  in  order  to  show  that  they  do  not  defend  new  or 
ungrounded  doctrines;  at  the  same  time  they  desired  to 
have  other  writings  especially  repeated  which  corresponded 
with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the 
Apology,  for  the  turning  away  of  false  teachings  and  abuses." 

This  was  signed  by  the  Elector  Frederick,  the  Elector 
Augustus,  the  Count  Palatine,  Duke  Christopher,  the  Mar- 
grave Carl,  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  by  their  own  hands, 
and  by  delegates.  The  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony 
and  Ulrich  of  Mecklenburg  did  not  sign,  but  asked  time 
for  thought. 

On  the  afternoon  of  January  3 1st  those  who  had  not 
signed  declared  that  they  could  only  do  so  if  the  errors  re- 
jected by  the  Lutheran  Church,  especially  as  to  the  sacra- 
ment, Avere  expressly  condemned.  Tlie're  was  a  violent  con- 
flict between  father-in-law  and  son-in-law — the  Elector  Fred- 
erick and  the  Duke  John  Frederick.  In  the  fourteenth 
session  on  February  2d  John  Frederick  gave  a  decided  writ- 
ten protest  against  the  Preface  to  be  subscribed,  which  was 
answered  on  the  same  day,  and  he  was  asked  not  to  further 
delay  the  highly  important  matter.  The  next  morning  be- 
tween five  and  six  o'clock,  Duke  John  Frederick  left  iSTaum- 
burg  suddenly  and  returned  to  Weimar. 

On  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  the  Elector  Frederick 


^^  Through  this  declaration,  influenced  by  circumstances  and  composed  by 
laymen,  the  Variata  was  recognized  as  another  form  of  the  Confession :  but 
the  question  what  to  do  In  view  of  the  really  existing  differences  was  evaded. — 
Kolde.   oq 


558        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

in  the  fifteenth  sitting  repeated  his  Melanchthouiau  Confes- 
sion on  the  Lord's  Supper  with  wliieh  the  remaining  princes 
declared  themselves  to  be  satisfied.  An  attempt  was  made 
to  reconcile  the  Duke  John  Frederick,  hut  he  abode  bj  his 
demand  for  a  satisfactory  declaration  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  a  full  explanation  of  the  difference 
between  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  and  1540,  for  a 
recognition  of  the  Schmalkald  Articles  as.  the  ^'  real  Chris- 
tian Declaration  and  Rule  of  the  original  Augustana,"  and 
was  willing  to  delay  the  matter  of  the  sects  and  the  corrup- 
tions to  a  later  Synod,  but  this  reply  came  in  too  late  for  the 
meeting. 

The  resolutions  were  sent  out  to  the  remaining  Protest- 
ants, Estates,  Counts,  Lords,  and  cities  for  subscription." 

Under  the  guidance  of  the  theologians  the  princes  sub- 
sequently withdrew  their  signatures  and  joined  in  the  Dec- 
laration of  the  Duke,  except  the  Elector  Palatine,  who  be- 
came a  Calvinist  and  introduced  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 

The  results  of  the  Diet  were  a  decided  declination  to 
participate  in  the  Tridentine  Council  and  the  growth  of  a 
Protestant  consciousness.  Peace  in  the  church  was  by  no 
means  brought  aboiit:  the  division  only  became  more  open, 
especially  between  the  houses  of  Saxony  and  the  Palatinate, 
and  between  both  lines  of  the  Saxon  houses.  Even  the 
presence  of  a  common  enemy  could  not  strengthen  any  feeling 
of  unity  between  the  confessors  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. The  Xaumburg  Convention  had  only  more  promi- 
nently exposed  the  inability  of  the  princes  to  come  to  a  unan- 
imous subscription. 

The  Xaumburg  Convention  \vith  its  discrimination,  but 
also  its  authorization,  of  both  editions  of  the  Augustana  forms 
an  important  epoch  in  the  development  of  the  confessional 
and  political   history  of  German  Protestantism,   a  connect- 


•"'  On  the  significance  of  this  Diet  at  Naumburg,  compare  the  declaration  in 
the  Preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord  of  1680,  together  with  Salig,  Planck, 
Heppe  and  Calinich.  The  judgment  in  each  case  is  according  to  the  con- 
fessional standpoint  of  the  writers. 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  559 

ing  link  on  the  one  side  between  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  the  Book  of  Concord,  on  the  other  side  between  tlie 
Keligious  Peace  of  Augsburg  and  the  Peace  of  Westphalia. 
For  through  this  Convention  at  Naumburg  the  Invariata 
of  1530  is  indeed  recognized  as  the  authentic  fundamental 
Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  through  it  the  basis 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  won  for  the  Lutheran  Church ; 
but  on  the  other  side  the  political  equality  of  the  con- 
fessors of  the  Variata  with  those  of  the  Invariata,  and  thus 
the  extension  of  the  benefits  of  religious  peace  to  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  church  were  prepared  for. 

This  ISTaumburg  Convention,  in  which  Melanchthonians 
and  stricter  Lutherans  partici])ated,  set  the  current  toward 
the  future  and  established  many  things.  The  Book  of  Con- 
cord was  but  the  execution  on  the  sound  Lutheran  side  of 
that  step  which  Naumburg,  wdiich  was  prevailingly  Mel- 
anehthonian,  had  recognized  as  imperatively  necessary. 
The  repeated  re-affirmation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  as 
being  the  very  Confession,  "  word  for  word "  with  the  one 
"  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  in  1530,"  dates  back 
to  ISTaumburg.  The  "  Preface "  and  the  "  Conclusion " 
written  in  the  name  of  the  Princes  rather  than  of  the  the- 
ologians go  back  to  the  ideas  of  Naumburg.  Naumburg 
even  suggested  the  preparation  of  a  new  Confession,  and 
this  w^as  ultimately  undertaken  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. It  suggested  the  condemnation  of  sectarians,  and 
the  mode  of  securing  subscriptions  for  the  Formula.  The 
Elector  Augustus,  so  active  on  the  Melanchthonian  side  at 
i^aumburg,  afterward  became  the  leader  of  the  princes  in 
having  the  Formula  prepared,  and  it  is  natural  that  he 
should  have  used  these  methods  (which  the  Melanchthonians 
did  not  object  to  at  Xaumburg)  to  secure  the  completion 
and  adoption  of  the  Formula  later  on.  Xaumburg  is 
strong  testimony  of  the  need  of  the  Formula. 

One  of  the  very  first  necessities  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
as  we  have  now  seen,  if  there  was  to  be  harmony  and  unity. 


560        THE  LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

was  an  established  and  acknowledged  standard  for  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  The  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
to  their  great  credit,  saw  the  importance  of  getting  such  a 
standard  text,  and  they  took  sound  means  of  securing  it; 
but,  owing  to  the  surreptitious  removal  of  fihe  German 
original  from  the  Maintz  chancellery,  with  the  substitution 
there  of  a  copy  in  its  place,  coupled  with  the  declaration 
that  this  was  the  authentic  original,  and  owing  to  the  mis- 
take, or  possible  duplicity  of  the  ambitious  Colestin,  the 
compilers  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  not  being  inspired,  were 
led  into  a  mistake.  So  sure  had  they  been  of  their  dis- 
covery of  the  original  German  copy  at  Maintz,  that  even 
the  mild  IMelanchthonian  Chytraeus,  who  would  never 
breathe  a  word  against  his  beloved  Melanchthon,  writes  as 
follows  respecting  the  supposed  original  copy  that  had  been 
rediscovered  at  Maintz: — 


"In  order  that  the  Christian  readers  of  this  book  may  be  sure  that  all  the 
documents  and  transactions  occurring  before,  during,  and  after  the  Diet  at  Augs- 
burg in  1530  are  genuine,  and  that  no  doubtful  or  suspicious  acts  are  mingled 
among  them  ;  I  will  distinctly  indicate  where  in  the  volumes  of  Luther  and  other 
credible  books  the  most  important  parts  incorporated  into  this  work  are  to  be 
found. 

"  But  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  Princes  and 
Estates  then  connected  with  him,  delivered  over  to  the  Emperor,  is  the  most  im- 
portant part  of  this  whole  book,  I  will  first  of  all  report  concerning  it,  for  every 
one  knows  that  among  the  copies  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  has  been  so 
many  times  reprinted,  enlarged  and  changed,  there  seems  to  be  not  a  small  degree 
of  dissimilarity. 

"But  after  all,  these  churches  always  undoubtedly  referred  and  appealed  to  the 
Confession  that  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg:  I 
have  had  the  first  copy  of  the  same,  as  it  was  delivered  at  that  time  to  his  imperial 
Majesty,  word  by  word,  and  from  the  original  that  was  preserved  in  the  imperial 
chancellery  of  the  archbishop  at  Maintz,  copied  off,  the  one  examined  by  Dr.  Henry 
Zoch,  upon  the  order  of  Margrave  Joachim,  the  Elector  at  Brandenberg,  and  have 
given  the  same  in  the  Kirchenordnung  of  the  Elector  of  Brandenberg  some  years 
ago. 

"  I  have  myself  seen  the  examined  copy  in  the  chancellery  at  Maintz.  Which 
also  corresponds  entirely,  word  for  word,  with  the  oldest  Latin  quarto  of  the  Con- 
fession printed  by  George  Raw  at  Wittenburg  :  and  with  the  written  copy  which 
Duke  Henry  of  Mecklenburg  and  certain  other  princes  copied  off  and  sent  there 
during  the  sessions  of  the  Diet  in  1580 :  likewise  with  the  cojiy  written  off  by  his 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  561 

own  hand  of  M.  George  Spalatin  who  at  that  time  was  present  at  Augsburg  as  one 
of  the  court  preachers  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  which  is  still  in  existence  in 
the  Saxon  Electoral  chancellery.  So  that  therefore  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  is 
really  and  truly  the  right  and  genuine  first  copy  of  the  Confession,  as  it  reads  word 
by  word,  which  was  delivered  to  his  imperial  Majesty  at  the  Ifiet  in  1530." 

But  the  copy  at  the  iMaiiitz  chanct'lleiy  was  not  the  Ger- 
man original,  only  a  copy.  IMius  the  German  text  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  while  it  is 
not  a  Variata,  and  is  eminently  sound  in  the  ])rinciples  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  to  use  the  worst  expression  that 
can  be  employed  against  it,  namely,  that  of  Weber,  swarms 
{'^  wimmelt  ")  w^ith  textual  errors. 

The  writers  of  the  preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord  say: — 

"Not  without  agitation  of  mind  we  were  informed  that  the  adversaries  of  the 
true  religion  received  our  work  in  such  a  way,  as  though  we  were  so  uncertain 
concerning  our  Confession  of  faith  and  religion,  and  so  often  have  transfused  it 
from  one  lormula  to  another,  that  it  is  no  longer  clear  to  us,  or  our  theologians, 
what  is  the  Confession  once  offered  to  the  Emperor  at  Augsburg.*'  .   .   . 

♦'Accordingly  in  order  that  no  persons  may  permit  themselves  to  be  disturbed 
by  the  charges  of  our  adversaries  .  .  .  that  there  is  not  even  agreement  among 
us  as  to  what  is  the  true  and  general  Augsburg  Confession,  but  that  both  those 
who  are  now  among  the  living,  and  posterity  also  may  be  clearly  and  thoroughly 
taught  and  informed  what  that  godly  Confession  is  .  .  .  we  emphatically  testify, 
that  we  wish  to  embrace  the  first  Augsburg  Confession  alone  which  was  presented 
to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  in  the  year  ITjSO  et  the  famous  Diet  of  Augsburg 
(alone  we  say),  and  no  other,  copies  of  which  deposited  in  the  archives  of  our 
predecessors  of  excellent  memory,  who  presented  it  in  the  Diet  to  Charles  V.  him- 
self, we  caused  to  be  compared  by  men  worthy  of  confidence  (lest  in  us  something 
with  respect  to  most  accurate  regard  for  diligence,  would  be  wanting)  with  the 
copy  which  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  himself,  and  is  preserved  in  the  archives 
of  the  Holy  Roman  empire,  and  we  are  sure  that  our  copies,  both  the  Latin  and 
the  German,  in  all  things  correspond  to  it,  with  like  meaning." 

These  men  were  right  in  all  points  save  their  premise, 
viz. :  tliat  the  IMaintz  chancellery  in  the  Iloman  Church  had 
really  preserved  the  fundamental  Protestant  charter  for  a 
half  century,  and  that  what  w^as  there  called  an  "  Original " 
was  an  ''  Original  "  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word. 

Thus  a  German  copy,  with  many  textual  variants,   and 

"  Jacobs,  Book  of  Cuiiconl,   I,   p.   11. 


562        THE  LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

not  the  lost  German  original,  became  the  German  text  of 
the  Book  of  Concord.  The  first  Latin  text  published  in  the 
Book  of  Concord  was  the  octave  edition  of  1531,  because 
there  was  haste  in  getting  the  Book  out,  and  the  quarto  was 
not  to  be  had.  But  in  the  next  edition  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, the  quarto  of  Editio  Princeps  of  1531  was  inserted, 
and  has  been  the  standard  ever  since. 

For  over  a  century  and  a  half  the  German  text  was  sup- 
posed to  have  a  superior  authenticity  to  the  Latin  text,  as 
being  an  exact  copy  to  the  very  letter  of  the  German  orig- 
inal, and  was  regarded  with  great  textual  reverence.  But 
Pfaff  already  at  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  18th  Cen- 
tury had  failed  to  find  the  original  at  Maintz,  and  Weber 
at  the  end  of  the  same  century  finally  brought  the  truth  to 
light  that  there  had  been  no  original  at  Maintz  as  early  as 
1545.  That  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  were 
deceived  as  to  the  original  German  text  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  no  more  proves  the  lack  of  authority  of  the 
Confession  as  a  confessional  standard,  or  its  lack  of  a  fixed 
doctrinal  and  general  textual  form,  than  the  fact  that  many 
scholars  of  the  17th  Century  were  deceived  as  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  letters  and  vowel  points  of  the  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts of  the  Old  Testament  proves  that  the  Old  Testament 
is  thereby  to  be  discredited,  or  that  it  is  not  a  sufficient 
standard  in  its  own  plane  of  authority;  or  that,  because  the 
Xew  Testament  contains  certain  passages,  which  are  now 
regarded  as  spurious  on  the  authority  of  the  best  manu- 
scripts, and  because  texts  have  been  discovered  which  com- 
pletely change  many  of  the  readings  of  the  old  Textus  Be- 
ceptus,  it  therefore  is  no  longer  to  be  found  in  standard  form, 
and  has  only  a  passing  and  changeable  value  for  those  who 
believe  and  confess  it. 

This  story  of  the  German  original  is  an  old  one,  but  has 
been  brought  forth  recently  under  the  guise  of  novelty.  It 
is  given  in  toto  already  in  The  Conservative  Reformation,  as 
follows : — 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  563 

"  The  first  authorized  edition,  the  Editio  Princeps,  com- 
ing from  the  hand  of  its  composer,  and  presenting  not  only 
in  the  nature  of  the  case  the  highest  guarantee  for  strict 
accuracy,  but  surrounded  by  jealous  and  watchful  enemies, 
in  the  very  Diet  yet  sitting,  before  which  it  \\as  read,  sur- 
rounded by  men  eager  to  mark  and  to  exaggerate  tlie  slightest 
appearance  of  discrepance,  was  received  by  Luther  and  the 
whole  Lutheran  Church.  Luther  knew  no  other  Augsburg 
Confession  in  the  German  than  this.  It  was  received  into 
the  Bodies  of  Doctrine  of  the  whole  Church.  It  appears 
in  the  Jena  edition  of  Luther's  works,  an  edition  which 
originated  in  the  purpose  of  having  his  writings  in  a  per- 
fectly unchanged  form,  and  was  there  given  as  the  authentic 
Confession  in  antithesis  to  all  the  editions  of  it  in  which 
there  were  variations  large  or  small. 

"  In  the  Conventon  of  the  Evangelical  (Lutheran)  Princes 
at  Naumburg  in  1561,  among  whom  were  two  of  the  orig- 
inal signers,  this  edition  was  declared  to  be  authentic,  and 
was  again  solemnly  subscribed,  and  the  seals  of  the  signers 
appended.  Xothing  could  seem  to  be  more  certainly  fixed 
than  that  this  original  edition  of  Melanchthon  presented  the 
Confession  in  its  most  perfect  form,  just  as  it  was  actually 
delivered  in  the  Diet. 

"  But  unhappy  causes,  connected  largely  with  Melanch- 
thon's  later  attempts  to  produce  unity  by  skilful  phrases 
and  skilful  concealments,  led  to  a  most  groundless  suspicion, 
that  even  in  the  original  edition  there  might  be  variations 
from  the  very  letter  of  the  Confession  as  actually  delivered. 
That  there  were  any  changes  in  meaning  was  not  even  in 
those  times  of  morbid  jealousy  pretended,  but  a  strong  anx- 
iety was  felt  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  Confession  perfectly 
corresponding  in  words,  in  letters,  and  in  points,  with  the 
original.  The  original  of  the  Latin  had  been  taken  by  Charles 
with  him,  but  the  German  original  was  still  supposed  to  be  in 
the  archives  at  Mentz.  Joachim  II.,  in  1566,  directed 
Coelestinus  and  Zochius  to  make  a  copy  from  the  Mentz 


564        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

original.  Their  copy  was  inserted  in  the  Brandenburg 
Body  of  Doctrine  in  1572. 

"  In  1570,  Augustus  of  Saxony  obtained  from  the  Elector 
of  Mentz  a  copy  of  the  same  document,  and  from  this  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  it  appears  in  the  Book  of  Concord 
was  printed.  Wherever  the  Book  of  Concord  was  received, 
Melanchthon's  original  edition  of  the  German  was  displaced, 
though  the  corresponding  edition  of  the  Latin  has  been 
retained.  Thus,  half  a  century  after  its  universal  recog- 
nition, the  first  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  Ger- 
man gave  way  to  what  was  believed  to  be  a  true  transcript 
of  the  original. 

"  Two  hundred  years  after  the  delivery  of  the  Confes- 
sion, a  discovery  was  communicated  to  the  tlieological  world 
by  Pfaff,  which  has  reinstated  Melanchthon's  original  edi- 
tion. Pfatf  discovered  that  the  document  in  the  archives 
at  Mentz  was  not  the  original,  but  a  copy  merely,  and  the 
labors  of  Weber  have  demonstrated  tliat  this  copy  has  no 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  made  from  the  original,  but  is  a 
transcript  from  one  of  the  less-finished  copies  of  the  Con- 
fession, made  before  it  had  assumed,  under  jMelanchthon's 
hand,  the  exact  shape  in  which  it  was  actually  presented. 
While,  therefore,  the  ordinary  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, the  one  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  from 
which  the  current  translations  of  the  Confession  have  been 
made,  does  not  differ  in  meaning  at  all  from  the  original 
edition  of  Melanchthon,  it  is,  nevertheless,  not  so  perfect 
in  style,  and  where  they  differ,  not  so  clear.  The  highest 
critical  authority,  then,  both  German  and  Latin,  is  that  of 
Melanchtlion's  own  original  editions."" 

"  The  current  edition  of  the  German,  and  the  earlier  edi- 
tion of  Melanchthon,  are  verbally  identical  in  the  larger  part 
of  the  articles,  both  of  doctrine  and  of  abuses.  The  only 
difference  is,  that  Melanchthon's  edition  is  occasionally  some- 


"  For   the   facts    here   presented,    Cp.    Webrr,   Krit.    Geschichte ;   Hase,    Lib. 
Symb.;  Francke,  do.;  Kolluer,  Sipnb.  d.   Luther.  Kirch.,   342. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  565 

what  fuller,  especially  on  the  abuses,  is  more  perfectly  par- 
allel with  the  Latin  at  a  few  points,  and  occasionally  more 
finished  in  style.  When  the  question  between  them  has  a 
practical  interest,  it  is  simply  because  Melanchthon's  edi- 
tion expresses  in  terms,  or  with  greater  clearness,  what  is 
simply  implied,  or  less  explicitly  stated  in  the  other."  " 

In  conclusion  we  may  sum  up  the  matter  of  the  relation 
of  manuscripts  and  the  printed  editions  to  the  Augustana 
as  a  Confessional  Standard  as  follows: — 

(1)  The  Augsburg  Confession  was  largely  drawn  up  from 
previous  manuscripts,  notably  the  Schwabach  and  the  Tor- 
gau  Articles.  While  it  was  still  a  proposed  draft,  and  be- 
fore it  attained  its  final  fixed  and  signed  form,  it  was  re- 
vised incessantly,  chiefly  by  j\lelanchthon,  its  personal  com- 
poser, but  also  l)y  the  Elector,  Brilek,  and  the  Estates  at  a 
late  date  allowed  to  participate  in  it.  Manuscript  copies 
were  made  of  it,  some  of  them  used  by  the  Princes  at  the 
Diet,  and  at  least  one  sent  home  by  the  representatives  of  a 
munici})ality  reporting  to  their  fixed  authorities,  before  it 
reached  its  final  form. 

(2)  As  final,  fixed,  and  signed,  it  existed  in  two  manu- 
scripts, the  German  of  which  was  read  at  the  Diet  and 
which  was  deposited  in  the  Maintz  chancellery,  whence  it 
disappeared,  after  Eck  had  compared  the  Variata  of  1540 
with  it,  before  1545 ;  and  the  Latin  original  which  was  de- 
posited in  Brussels  until  1567  and  then  disappeared. 

(3)  The  Emperor  had  forbidden  the  publication  of  the 
document.  But  it  was  published  surreptitiously  in  a  num- 
ber of  editions  by  various  irresponsible  parties,  and  Mel- 
anchthon  was  obliged  to  prepare  a  form  which  represented 
the  convictions  of  the  Lutheran  Estates.  ISTo  blame  can  be 
attached  to  him  if  the  text  of  this  Editio  Princeps  differed 
textually  in  a  number  of  ways  from  the  originals  handed 
in  to  the  Emperor  and  as  the  edition  thus  issued  was  ac- 


13  Con.  Ref.,  p.   251-253. 


566         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

cepted  as  authentic  by  all  the  original  principals  and  signa- 
tories, it  must,  in  the  absence  of  the  original,  be  so  regarded, 
not  only  because  it  was  the  first  official  text  drawn  up,  and 
was  declared  by  Melanchthon  to  have  been  drawn  from  good 
authorities,  but  also  because  it  was  accepted  by  all  the 
parties  in  interest,  as  the  Standard  Edition,  even  though 
here  and  there,  and  in  many  places,  we  may  firmly  believe, 
from  our  knowledge  of  the  private  manuscripts  of  the 
Princes,  that  it  does  not  bear  the  exact  external  text  of  the 
original  document.  Kolde  is  entirely  right  when  he  says: 
"  This  must  be  emphasized,  ]\[elanchthon's  edition  was  taken 
and  regarded  as  the  authentic  reproduction  of  the  faith 
confessed  before  the  Emperor  and  the  realm,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  they  had  in  their  hands  many  kinds  of 
copies  reading  otherwise." "  Kolde  also  draws  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  this  First  Edition  of  the  Augustana, 
which  was  bound  up  with  and  issued  simultaneously  with 
the  x\pology,  the  book  shows  an  official  character  because 
Melanchthon  does  not  call  himself  the  composer,  while  he 
does  state  in  the  title  that  he  is  the  composer  of  the  Apology, 
because,  even  though  in  its  first  outline  it  was  composed  at 
the  request  of  the  Evangelical  Estates;  yet  it  was  never 
delivered,  and  was  greatly  enlarged  by  Melanchthon,  and 
therefore  was  merely  a  private  work  at  that  time. 

(4)  Even  the  most  numerous  textual  variations  in  various 
copies  of  the  Confession  would  not  justify  us  in  abandoning 
an  edition  thus  received  as  Standard,  on  the  ground  that 
it  Avas  a  Variata.  The  corruptions  of  the  Textiis  Receptus, 
though  they  run  up  to  over  a  hundred  thousand,  in  the  Xew 
Testament  would  not  justify  us  in  saying  that  the  world  has 
been  obliged  to  depend  upon  an  "Altered  Bible."  In  this 
case,  the  Received  Text  has  the  sanction  and  has  enjoyed 
the  use  of  the  original  writers  themselves,  as  the  Standard 
Copy. 


'*  Article   on   Atigsburg  Confession   in  Herzog-Hauck. 


TEXTS   AND    VARIATA.  567 

As  to  Colestin  and  the  imperfect  readings  of  the  German 
edition  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  it  only  can  be  said,  that 
later  discovery  destroys  the  claim  of  those  who  wrote  the 
Preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord  that  the  German  text  is 
correct  word  for  word,  but  does  not  invalidate  the  substance 
of  that  text,  and  it  all  the  more  firmly  establishes  the  Latin 
text  of  the  Editio  Princeps  as  the  standard  of  the  Augustana 
Invai'iata. 

The  confirmation  of  the  Latin  Text  of  the  Quarto  of  1531 
as  a  Standard  is  admitted  by  \Yeber,  as  the  following  con- 
clusions (I,  pp.  46,  47)  show: — 

1.  That  the  text  of  the  Latin  Quarto  Edition  of  1531  still 
bears  undeniable  marks  of  recognition  from  the  earliest 
draft  of  the  Confession.  This  is  probably  the  only  right 
explanation  why  it  still  differs  here  and  there,  and  partic- 
ularly in  the  first  of  the  contested  Articles  from  the  manu- 
scripts in  the  archives,  as  well  as  the  Maintz  copy,  and  if  you 
desire  to  say  so,  also  from  the  German  Melanchthonian 
Edition  of  1531.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  give  ex- 
amples. Every  one  can  find  such  who  takes  the  trouble  to 
compare  the  before-mentioned  text  with  the  Maintz  copy. 

2.  That  the  text  of  the  Latin  Quarto  Edition  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  of  1531  cannot  be  taken  as  a  touch-stone  by 
which  to  discover  the  original  German  text ;  for  this  did  not 
receiA'e  the  last  touches  from  Melanchthon's  hand. 

3.  It  is  historically  certain  that  Melanchthon  elaborated 
the  German  Confession  more  diligently  than  the  Latin,  and 
it  is  probably  historically  certain  that  not  all  the  changes 
which  ^Melanchthon  introduced  into  the  Confession  from 
May  22nd  to  June  22nd  were  transferred  to  the  Latin." 

4.  AVeber  explains  that  the  "  Written  Original  Confes- 
sion "  of  which  a  copy  was  sent  by  the  Elector  Daniel  of 
Maintz  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  on  the  evening  of  August 


"  "  As   I   have   shown   in  the  preceding  example  on  the  Article  of  the  mar- 
riage of  priests." 


568        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

19th,  1576,  was  a  copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the 
already  copied  "Religious  Acts,"  which  writing  had  already 
been  called  the  ''  Protocol "  by  Colestin.  He  says  that  in  the 
Maintz  chancellery  it  was  the  custom  to  call  every  copy  which 
took  the  place  of  the  original  an  "  Original."  Thus  he 
declares  tliat  Spalatin's  manuscript  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession which  Duke  John  of  Saxony  took  to  the  Confession 
in  ISTaumburg  in  1561  was  called  "  Original  ".  He  believes 
that  the  chancellery  applied  the  w^ord  ''  Original "  to  written 
documents  as  in  contrast  with  printed  volumes.  He  also 
believes  that  the  document  sent  to  the  Elector  Augustus  had 
the  signatures,  and  that  they  had  been  transferred  to  the 
copy  in  question  from  the  Brandenburg  document. 

But  wliile  Weber  deprecates  the  authority  of  the  German 
text  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  he  places  highest  value  on  the 
Latin  Editio  Princeps.  He  says :  "  I  do  not  wish  to  declare 
that  the  highest  authenticity  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Melanch- 
thon's  first  Latin  Edition,  i.  c,  looking  at  it  critically,  that 
it  is  the  same  as  the  original  writing  delivered  to  the  Em- 
peror. For  ]\Ielanchthon  himself  admits  that  his  Edition 
was  nofr^prcparcd  in  accordance  with  the  original  writing, 
but  according  to  a  trust-worthy  copy;  and  ...  it  may  be 
that  Melanchthon  here  and  there  interpolated  something  in 
his  Edition."  But  Weber  is  unwilling  to  allow  either  the  Ea- 
bricius  copy  or  the  manuscripts  in  the  archives  to  have  higher 
authority  than  Melanchthon's  Latin  copy,  and  he  desires  his 
readers  to  give  preference  to  tliis  Latin  text  of  the  Editio 
Princeps,  "  which  the  Protestant  church  has  also  ascribed  to 
Melanchthon  in  that  it  has  taken  up  this  his  chief  edition 
into  the  Book  of  Concord,  rather  than  to  adhere  to  the  text 
of  Fabrieius  and  the  manuscripts  of  the  archives." 

"  If  the  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  says  Weber, 
"  are  to  be  distinguished  from  one  another  without  our  fall- 
ing into  confusion,  it  is  necessary  to  give  the  higher  authority 
to  the  first  one,  which  according  to  Melanchthon's  admissions 
was  printed  critically  and   according  to  a  good  and  trust- 


TEXTS  AND    VARIATA.  569 

worthy  copy,  from  the  later  ones  which  contain  his  further 
elaborations  and  elucidations." 

Weber  also  calls  the  Latin  quarto  edition  of  1531  the 
"  Melanchthonische  Haupt-Ausgabe."  He  says :  "  This  in- 
vestigation ...  at  every  point  maintains  the  authenticity 
of  the  Editio  Princeps.  It  remains  the  most  precious  treas- 
ure of  the  Evangelical  Church."  ** 

In  conclusion,  we  may  add  that  the  delicate  accuracy  of 
the  Invariata  is  that  of  a  standard  watch  movement,  rather 
than  that  of  an  exquisitely  chased  watch-case.  The  question 
of  the  Variata  is  not  a  question  of  the  letter,  but  of  sub- 
stance. The  original  letter  becomes  important  only  where 
it  is  actually  the  bearer  and  the  arbiter  of  original  substance. 


•"  We  have  quoted  Weber  so  fully  becausa  he  is  the  leading  critical  Melanch- 
thouian  authority. 


CHAPTER    XXII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

PROTESTANTISM  UInTDER  THE  AUGSBURG  CO^- 
FESSION  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  LUTHER. 

The  Apology  and  its  Confessional  Import — The  Schmalkald  League — The  Princes 
and  Estates — The  Faith  Taught  in  the  Loci — Melanchthon  Waves  the  Olive 
Branch  to  Bucer — The  Wittenberg  Concord — The  Schmalkald  Articles — The 
Marriage  of  Philip  of  Hesse — The  Variata — The  Regensburg  Interim — The 
Reformation  of  Cologne — The  Death  of  Luther. 

LET  US  turn  from  tlie  history  of  the  Augiistana  manu- 
scripts  and  editions,  to  witness  the  development  of 
the  Protestant  principle,  and  to  watch  the  men  and  move- 
ments nnder  which  it  occnrred. 

On  the  third  of  Ang:nst,  1530,  the  Roman  Confutation  * 
of  the  Aiigustana  was  read  before  the  Diet,  and  on  tlie  twenty- 
second  of  September,  jnst  before  tlie  Diet  adjourned,  Mel- 
anchtlion's  Apology  was  offered  to  the  Emperor;  and  now 
Melanchthon  spent  the  remainder  of  the  year  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  next,  to  April,  1531,  in  making  his  Apology 
more  thorough  and  elaborate.  In  mild  and  flowing  language, 
rising  at  times  to  heights  of  passionate  eloquence,  it  pours 
forth  treasures  of  Scriptural  and  historical  learning,  to  de- 
fend and  elucidate  the  great  Protestant  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone,  without  works,  from  every  possible  point 
of  view. 

The  Apology,  far  more '  than  the  Augsburg  Confession, 

*  Given  in  full,  tr.  by  Jacobs,  in  our  English  Booh  of  Concord  II,  p.  209-241. 

*  The  Apology   is  "seven   times   as  large  as  the  Confession   itself.      It   Is   the 
most   learned  of  the  Lutheran  symbols." — Scbaff  Creeds  I,   p.   2-14. 

570 


FROM   1530    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.         571 

is  the  great  Lutheran  monograph  on  the  cardinal  doctrine  of 
Reformation,  written  under  the  actual  attack  of  the  Roman 
theologians,  and  confessing,'  with  lieart  and  soul,  this  funda- 
mental truth  of  Scripture.  It  opened  all  eyes,  except,  per- 
haps, its  author's,  to  the  permanency  of  the  gap  between  the 
Evangelical  Faith  and  Rome. 

But  the  Emperor  was  ill-j)leased  with  this  success,  and 
the  Protestant  states  felt  it  necessary  to  form  a  league  among 
themselves.  For  it  now  appeared  "  that  those  who  had  the 
pure  Word  of  God  preached  in  tlieir  territory,  were  to  be 
restrained  by  force  from  continuing  this  God-pleasing  under- 
taking, and,  since  it  was  the  duty  of  every  Christian  govern- 
ment to  prevent  its  subjects  from  being  compelled  to  fall 
away  from  the  pure  Word  of  God,  they,  solely  for  the  sake 
of  their  o^^^l  defence,  had  come  to  the  agreement  that,  when- 
ever anyone  of  them  was  attacked  on  account  of  the  Word, 
or  anything  connected  therewith,  tliey  would  immediately  all 
come  to  his  assistance.  This  alliance  should  not  be  regarded 
as  in  opposition  to  the  Emperor,  since  it  was  simply  intended 
for  the  protection  of  Christian  truth  and  peace,  as  also  for 
defence  against  unla'U'ful  violence." 

Thus  ^*   was  the  Schmalkald  League  brought  into  life,  with 


*  "  To  one  charged  with  the  care  of  souls  the  frequent  reading  of  the  Apology, 
is  invaluable  on  account  of  the  manner  in  which  it  solves  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  most  vital  points  in  Christian  experience  ;  while  the  private 
Christian,  although  perhaps  compelled  to  pass  by  some  portions  occupied  with 
learned  discussions,  will  find  in  many — we  may  say,  in  most — parts  what  Is, 
in  fact,  a  book  of  practical  religion.  The  chapter  '  Of  Love  and  Fulfilling  the 
Law,'  with  the  preceding  more  learned  and  technical  one  on  Justification, 
Phillppi  aptly  remarks,  bears  to  the  entire  contents  of  the  Confessional  writ- 
ings the  same  relation  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  to  the  entire  Scriptures 
their  *  kern  and  stern,'  so  clearly  are  they  grounded  in  Scriptural  experience, 
so  triumphant,  edifying  and  consoling  is  their  development." — Jacobs,  Book, 
of   Concord   11,    41. 

^»  They  met,  princes  and  delegates  of  cities,  in  the  little  upland  town  of 
Schmalkalden,  lying  on  the  south-west  frontier  of  Electoral  Saxony,  circled 
by  low  hills  which  were  white  with  snow  (December  22nd-31st).  They  had 
to  face  at  once  harassing  litigation,  and,  after  the  15th  of  April,  the  threat 
that  they  would  be  stamped  out  by  force  of  arms.  Were  they  still  to  maintain 
their  doctrine  of  passive  resistance?  The  question  was  earnestly  debated. 
Think  of  these  earnest  German  princes  and  burghers,  their  lives  and  property 
at  stake,  debating  this  abstract  question  day  after  day,  resolute  to  set  their 
own  consciences  right  before  coming  to  any  resolution  to  defend  themselves  ! 

Many  towns  now  joined  the  Schmalkald  League.  Brunswick  joined.  Ham- 
burg   and    Rostock    in    the    far    north,    Goslar    and    Gottingen    in    the    centre. 


572        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

restive  and  radical  Philip  of  Hesse  as  the  moving,  and  the 
Elector'  of  Saxony  as  the  substantial,  spirit.  That  Fall, 
Zwingli  was  killed  upon  the  battlefield,  and  Oecolampadius 
died ;  and  the  following  Jnne,  the  Emperor's  difficulties  with 
the  Turks  influenced  him  to  grant  the  Protestants  the  re- 
ligious Peace  of  ISTuremberg.  Leonard  Kaiser  perished  in 
the  flames,  a  Lutheran  martyr;  and,  during  that  same  sea- 
son, the  Elector  was  stricken  with  apoplexy,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son,  John  Frederick. 

The  princes  and  estates  were  looked  to  as  the  Powers  to 
carry  out  the  Reformation,  each  in  his  own  territory.  AVhile 
the  congregations  possessed  the  right  of  passing  judgment  on 
doctrine,  the  princes  were  regarded  as  representative  of  the 
congregation-at-large  (Christianity),  and  as  "prsecipua" 
in  it. 

Thus  the  princes  and  magistrates  were  the  official  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Peformation.  They  became  the  public 
defenders  of  the  new  doctrine,"  framed  by  the  theologians, 
hut  legalized  onlij  irhen  adopted  hy  tlie  secular  govern)nent. 
This  accounts  for  the  importance  attached,  by  all  church 
parties,  to  subscription  to  the  Confessions  legally  adopted 
on  any  territory;  which  has  followed  the  State  faiths  of 
Germany  as  an  incubus,  through  succeeding  centuries;  and 
which,  as  underlying  a  State  form  of  religious  organization, 
must  be  divorced  from  a  consideration  of  the  C^onfessions 


joined.  Almost  all  North  Germany  and  the  more  important  imperial  towns 
in  the  South  were  united  in  one  .strong  confederacy  by  this  Schmalkald  League. 
It  became  one  of  the  European  Powers.  Denmark  wished  to  Join.  Thomas 
Cromwell  was  anxious  that  England  should  join.  The  League  was  necessarily 
anti-Hapsburg,  and  the  Emperor  had  to  reckon  with  it. 

When  the  Diet  met  at  Niirnberg  in  1532,  the  Emperor  knew  that  he  was 
unable  to  coerce  the  Lutherans,  and  returned  to  his  earlier  courteous  way  of 
treating  them.  They  were  more  patriotic  than  the  German  Romanists  for 
whom  he  had  done  so  much.  Luther  declared  roundly  that  the  Turks  must 
be  met  and  driven  back,  and  that  all  Germans  must  support  the  Emperor  in 
repelling  the  invasion. — Lindsay,    Hist.  Ref.,  p.   373  sq. 

'"When  warned  by  Melanchthon  of  the  possible  effects  of  his  signature, 
the  Elector  .Tohn  of  Saxony  nobly  replied  :  '  I  will  do  what  is  right,  uncon- 
cerned about  my  electoral  dignity ;  I  will  confess  my  Lord_  whose  cross  I 
esteem  more  highly  than  all  the  power  of  earth.'  " — Schaff  Creeds  I,  p.   226. 

» First  recognized  in  the  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Spires ;  and  receiving  legal 
Imperial  sanction  at  the  Peace  of  Augsburg. 


FROM    1530   TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  573 

proper.  It  is  only  a  secondary  matter  in  a  eoniitry  where 
the  legal  aspects  of  a  religious  faith  are  not  primary,  and 
where  the  legal  sanctions  of  the  State  are  separate  and  apart 
from  the  faith  and  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  are 
applicable  only  in  the  solution  of  questions  pertaining  to 
property  and  disputes  as  to  compensation  of  officers.  ''  Orig- 
inally intended  merely  as  testimonies  or  confessions  of  faith, 
these  documents  became  gradually  binding  formulas  of  pub- 
lic doctrine,  and  subscription  to  them  was  rigorously  exacted 
from  all  clergymen  and  public  teachers  in  Lutheran  State 
churches."  ' 

While  the  princes  were  defending  the  faith,  and  Luther 
was  witnessing  to  it  and  translating  the  Scriptures,  Melanch- 
thon  was  at  work  framing  the  forms  for  its  permanent  em- 
bodiment, and  passing  them  down  to  the  next  generation  of 
scholars  who  now  sat,  as  students,  at  his  feet.  Luther  was 
the  Confessor,  and  Melanchthon  was  the  theologian,  the 
systematizer,  of  the  evangelical  doctrine.  Luther  found  the 
truth;  Melanchthon  harmonized  it  with  philological,  logical 
and  ]>hilosopliical  knowledge,  and  put  it  into  text-book  form. 
Luther  was  not  slow  in  declaring  that  "  All  that  we  know 
in  the  arts  and  in  philosophy,  we  owe  to  Philip.  He  has 
only  the  degree  of  ]\[ajister,  yet  he  is  a  doctor  above  all 
doctors." 

As  a  true  humanist,  Melanchthon  would  have  preferred 
to  remain  in  these  realms  of  "  the  arts  and  philosophy,"  in 
which  he  was  the  first  great  modern  text-book  maker.  But 
Luther  insisted  that  he  must  enter  the  sphere  of  theology; 
and  after  various  theological  lectures,  he  gave  the  Church 
the  first  great  Protestant  text-book  of  Theology,  in  1521, 
which  ran  through  no  less  than  fifty   editions   during  his 


'  "  As  early  as  1533,  a  statute  was  enacted  In  Wittenberg  bj'  Luther,  Jonas, 
and  others,  which  required  the  doctors  of  theology,  at  their  promotion,  to 
swear  to  the  incorrupt  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  as  taught  in  the  symbols.  It 
was  only  a  modification  of  the  oath  customary  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
After  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  subscription  began  to  be  enforced 
on  pain  of  deposition  and  exile.  See  KoUner.  Symh.,  1  p.  106  segq." — 
Schaff,  Creeds  I,  p.  222.  Its  introduction  at  this  time,  after  the  organizatioD 
of  the  Schmalkald  League,   is   significant. 

i-iO 


574         TILK    JAyfJlKHAN    CONFESSIONS. 

lifetime,  and  which  brought  his  power  of  systematization, 
his  stores  of  knowledge,  and  his  dialectic  skill  of  statement, 
to  bear  npon  the  evangelical  doctrine  discovered  by  Luther. 
The  "Loci"  had  thus  become  the  first  and,  for  a  long  time, 
the  only  attempt  at  a  systematic  presentation  of  conservative 
Protestant  dogmatics.  Luther,  in  his  hearty  way,  declared 
the  book  "  invincible,  worthy  not  only  of  immortality,  but 
of  being  placed  in  the  inspired  canon." 

This  unstinted  commendation  of  the  "Loci"  was  of  its  first 
edition.  It  was  the  later  editions,  from  1535  and  sub- 
sequently, in  which  Mclanchthon  made  doctrinal  changes  in 
the  materia]  of  the  "Loci,"  corresponding  to  the  changes  in 
his  teachings,  that  indicate  the  growing  difference  in  doctrine 
between  Luther  and  himself.' 

But  the  year  1532  was  a  peaceful  one — a  rainbow  between 
the  storms — for  IMelanchthon;  and  his  Commentary  on 
Romans  appeared.  It  was  probably  the  last  year  of  real 
concord  and  rest  for  the  gentle  Preceptor:  1533  ushered  in 
the  gathering  darkness.  Luther  and  Ifelanchthon  "  repre- 
sented in  their  later  period,  which  may  be  dated  from  the 
year  1533,  two  types  of  Lutheranism,  the  one  the  conclusive 
and  exclusive,  the  other  the  expansive  and  unionistic  type." 
For  Melanchthon,  who  had  opposed  the  Swiss  Reformed 
consistently,  and  especially  at  Augsburg,  in  the  lingering 
hope  of  a  restoration  of  Lutheranism  to  Rome,  and  whose 
heart  had  clung  to  a  visible  external  unity  of  the  Church 
under  a  uniform  rule  culminating  in  the  Papacy,  now  became 
a  convert  to  tlie  persuasive  powers  of  IMartin  Pucer,  the 
most  diplomatic  of  all  the  Reformers,  who  gave  his  busy 
life  and  enormous  strength  to  the  cause  of  a  great  Protestant 
I'^nion ;  and  who  managed  by  sacrificing  parts  of  his  own 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  Lutlieranism — ^which  he 
felt  he  could  readily  do,  since,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Re- 


^ "  In  the  first  edition  ot  the  'Loci,'  Melanchthon's  raonergism  is  entirely 
out  of  harmony  with  the  synergism  which  our  author  advocates." — Jacobs  on 
Valentine,    Christian   Theology. 

»Schaff,    Creeds    I,    p.    259. 


FBOM   15  30    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  575 

formed,  it  was  not  siieh  a  vital  truth  to  him — not  only  con- 
vinced even  Luther  for  a  time '  that  union  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  Sacrament  was  possible,  but  by  repeated  interviews  and 
writings  to  the  radical  Swiss  held  them  in  elieck  in  their 
extreme  views,  and  thus  probably,  brought  Protestantism  as 
near  together,  temporarily,  as  it  ever  has  been  in  the  past, 
and  nearer  than  it  ever  will  be  in  the  future. 

This  quif^  forsaking  of  Luther,  and  of  tlie  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,""  under  the  influence  of  Bucer, 
and  this  coming  into  agreement  on  the  sacrament  with  Bucer 
and  Calvin,  was  connected  witli  and  furthered  by  several 
otlier  developments  in  iMelanchthon's  mind.  In  the  first 
place,  he  had  found  that  some  of  tlie  Church  Fathers,  whose 
autliority  he  ever  respected  highly,  had  sanctioned  the  fig- 
urative view  of  the  Supper ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  he  was 
just  at  this  time  filled  with  the  delusive  idea  of  uniting  the 
whole  Protestant  world  into  a  visible  Church,  just  as  earlier 
he  had  hoped  for  such  a  visible  reunion  under  Rome.  In 
sympathy  with  Bucer,  lie  was  engaged  in  negotiations  not 
only  to  bring  south  and  nortli  Germany  together  into  the 
unity  of  one  Protestant  bond,  but  he  was  negotiating  with 
Prancis,  King  of  France,  and  Henry  VIII.  of  England  to 


» In  the  Wittenberg  Concord. 

"  The  Reformed,  at  least,  claim  that  Melanchthon  was  agreed  with  Bucer. 
and  later  with  Calvin,  on  thi.s  doctrine.  Schaff  says:  "He  [Melanchthon] 
gave  up  the  peculiar  features  of  Luther's  doctrine,  viz.,  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  of  institution,  and  the  oral  manducation  of  the  bodj'  of 
Christ.  .  .  .  Calvin  publicly  declared  that  he  and  Melanchthon  were  insepar- 
ably united  on  this  point:  '  Conflrnio,  non  niac/is  a  me  Philippum  quam  a 
propriis  viscerihus  hi  hac  causa  posse  diveUi'  (AdmoniUo  ultima  ad  West- 
phalum,  0pp.  VIII,  p.  687).  Galle  maintains  that  Melanchthon  stood 
entirely  on  Calvin's  side  (I.  c.  P.  445).  So  does  Ebrard,  who  says:  'Melanch- 
thon ham,  ohne  auf  Calvin  Eiicksicht  zu  nehmen,  ja  ohne  von  dessen  Lehre 
wissen  zu  konnen,  auf  selbstdndigetn  Wege  [But  recall  Bucer's  previous  in- 
fluence.— T.  E.  S.]  zu  derselben  Ansicht,  welchc  hci  Calvin  sich  ansr/ebildet 
hatte'  (Das  Dogma  v.  heil.  Abendmahl,  Vol.  II,  p.  437.)  He  also  repeatedly 
rejected  (as,  in  fact,  he  never  taught)  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  the  ubiquity 
of  Christ's  body,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  body  and  with 
the  fact  of  Christ's  ascension  to  Heaven  and  sitting  in  Heaven,  whence  he 
shall  return  to  judgment.  But  he  never  became  a  Zwinglian  :  he  held  fast 
to  a  spiritual  real  presence  of  the  person  (rather  than  the  body)  of  Christ, 
and  a  fruition  of  his  life  and  benefits  by  faith.  In  one  of  his  last  utterance.s, 
shortly  before  his  death,  he  representfd  the  idea  of  a  vital  union  and  com- 
munion with  the  person  of  Christ  as  the  one  and  only  essential  thing  in  this 
sacred   ordinance." — Creeds   I,   p.    264   sq. 


576         THE   LUTHERAN    C  0  N  FE  S  tilON  S. 

the  same  end.  Poor  Melanclithon !  How  little  he  under- 
stood human  nature,  both  that  of  kings,  of  theologians  and 
of  common  people,  and  how  much  confidence  he  placed  in 
idle  promises  of  nearer  union  that  never  were  intended  to 
compass  more  than  the  self-interest  of  those  that  made  them ! 

Bucer  was  unwearied  and  undaunted  in  his  eiforts  to  bring 
the  Protestants  together.  In  1529,  he  had  succeeded  in  com- 
pelling the  two  Protestant  parties  to  face  each  other  at 
Marburg.  And  though  he  could  not,  even  with  the  aid  of 
Philip  of  Hesse,  persuade  the  Elector  and  Melanchthon  to 
allow  the  Reformed  to  join  in  the  Confession  at  Augsburg, 
but  was  obliged  to  frame  and  hand  in  one  representing  four 
Reformed  cities,  the  Tetrapolitana,  separately,  to  the  em- 
peror (July  11,  1530),  yet  he  remained  undismayed;  and, 
before  he  left  Augsburg,  sought  and  gained  an  interview 
with  Luther  at  Coburg  (Sept.,  1530),  in  which  Luther  good- 
naturedly  promised  to  read  a  new  Confession  which  Bucer 
would  prepare.  As  Melanchthon  also  seemed  more  disposed 
to  listen  to  him,  he  now  undertook  an  extensive  journey 
through  upper  Germany  and  Switzerland,  to  make  it  clear 
to  the  Reformed  that  they  should  prepare  for  an  approach 
toward  the  Lutherans.  The  political  situation  was  such  that 
both  the  Swiss  above,  and  Strasburg  below,  were  most  will- 
ing to  do  this,  in  order  not  to  be  separated  from  the  power- 
ful Elector  of  Saxony.  It  was  thus  that  Strasburg  succeeded 
in  being  admitted  into  the  Schmalkald  League.  By  1534, 
Bucer  had  pushed  his  life-effort  at  Concord  so  far  that,  in 
December,  the  Swiss  accepted  a  doctrinal  compromise  and 
authorized  Bucer  to  enter  into  unionistic  negotiations  with 
Luther, 

Just  at  this  juncture,  in  Dec,  1534,  Philip  of  Hesse  "* 


w»  In  the  Spring  of  1534,  Philip,  at  the  head  of  the  Schmalkald  League,  had 
driven  Ferdinand  and  the  imperialists  out  of  the  Duchy  of  Wuertemberg  and 
made  it  a  Lutheran  State.  As  a  result  of  this  Protestant  victory  of  Philip, 
Ferdinand  was  obliged  to  agree  that  the  Imperial  Court  would  try  no  Protest- 
ant for  a  matter  of  faith.  The  victory  also  led  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
Swabian  League  In  1536,  and  thus  the  Schmalkald  League  was  master  of  the 
German   situation. 


FROM    15  30    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  577 

arranged  a  meeting  at  Cassel  between  Bucer  and  Melanch- 
thon — and  Melanchthon  came  back  to  Wittenberg,  a  sup- 
porter of  Bucer.  A  week  or  two  later,  on  Jan.  10,  1535,  we 
find  Melanchthon  privately  renouncing  Luther's  doctrine, 
in  a  letter  to  Camerarius  in  which  he  says :  "  Mcam  senten- 
tiam  noli  nunc  requirere,  fui  enim  nuncius  aliae,'^ "  i.  e., 
Luther's.  And  only  two  days  later  still,  he  wrote  con- 
fidentially to  Brentz,  that  many  of  the  Fathers  interpreted 
the  Supper  typically,  ^o  wonder,  then,  that  the  new  edition 
of  the  "Loci,"  just  now  in  press  (1535),  came  out  with  its 
changes  not  only  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but 
also  on  Free  Will ;  and  that  the  "Variata"  appeared  later 
with  its  significant  changes.  It  becomes  a  question  as  to 
how  far  Melanchthon  was  only  expressing  his  private 
opinion,  and  relieving  a  burdened  conscience,  in  these 
changes ;  and  in  how  far  he  was  intending  thus  silently  and 
diplomatically  to  prepare  the  way,  even  at  that  day,  for 
Bucer's  cherished  scheme,  furthered  by  himself,  of  uniting 
the  Reformed  and  the  Lutherans  on  a  basis  acceptable  to 
both. 

At  last,  in  1536,  Bucer's  long-prepared-for  scheme  to  unite 
Reformed  and  Lutherans  reached  its  head  in  a  meet- 
ing at  Wittenberg.  Luther  was  sick,  and  at  first  opposed 
the  holding  of  the  meeting.  After  Bucer's  earnest  efforts, 
this  conference  between  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutherans 
took  place  in  Luther's  own  house.  Here  the  Wittenberg 
Concord  was  signed  by  Bucer,  Capito  and  Albert,  on  the 
Reformed  side,  and  by  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Bngenhagen, 
and  others  on  the  Lutheran  side.*^  (The  Wittenberg  Concord 
with  Bucer's  Exhortation  and  Explanation,  is  to  be  found  in 
our  English  Book  of  Concord.") 


"  Corp.  Reform.,  II,  p.  822. 

"  Though  the  refusal  of  Luther  at  Marburg  is  always  referred  to  by  Union- 
ists, it  is  sometimes  overlooked  that  three  Reformed  leaders,  Bullinger, 
Myconius,  and  Grynaeus,  seceded  from  the  Union  effort  of  Bucer  and  defended 
themselves  in  the  Confessio  Helvetica  prior,  which,  in  temperate  manner,  main- 
tains firmly  the  doctrine  of  Zwingli, 

13  II,  p.  253-260. 


578        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

This  Concord  declares  that  "  we  must  affirm  that  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  truly  given  and  received  in 
the  Holy  Supper,"  and  that  "  Dr.  Luther  and  his  colleagues 
do  not  teach  that  Christ  is  naturally  united  with  the  ele- 
ments, or  offered  after  any  mode  of  the  present  life.  It  is  a 
heavenly  object  and  is  offered  after  a  heavenly  mode." 
"  Since  such  is  your  position,"  said  Luther,  ^'  we  are  one, 
and  we  recognize  and  receive  you  as  our  dear  brethren  in 
the  Lord,  so  far  as  concerns  this  article." 

The  spirit  of  Luther  was  admirable.  The  IMarburg  Col- 
loquy and  the  Wittenberg  Coucord  belong  together,  and, 
with  Luther  firm  as  a  rock  in  both,  must  be  judged  together. 
Luther's  love  for  true  union  in  unity,  his  steadfastness,  and 
moderation ;  and  yet,  in  the  end,  the  vindication  of  his  Mar- 
burg judgment — are  most  remarkable."' 

At  Wittenberg  Bucer  sacrificed  Reformed  doctrine ;  and 
the  inconsistency  of  L^nionists,  in  professing  to  be  willing, 
on  their  side,  to  compromise  on  non-essentials,  if  they  can 
unite  in  fundamentals,  has  never  been  more  strikingly  shown 
than  is  done  by  Schaff,  who  condemns  Luther  at  Marburg 
for  not  yielding,  and  yet  condemns  Bucer  (and  the  whole 
compromise  plan),  at  Wittenberg,  for  yielding.  Schaff's 
words,  written  in  describing  the  Reformed  church,  deserve 
to  be  pondered.  He  says :  ''  Bucer  labored  with  indefatig- 
able zeal  for  an  evangelical  union,  and  hoped  to  attain  it  by 


1'*  Luther's  original  view,  at  the  end  of  January,  1535,  of  this  whole 
situation  brought  on  by  Bucer,  Philip  of  Hesse  and  Melanchthon  at  Cassel.  is 
so  sound  and  sensible,  and  so  pertinent  to-day  yet,  that  we  have  translated  a 
part  of  it,   as   follows  : — 

"  With  respect  to  Bucer's  Opinion  that  Magister  Philip  has  brought  from 
Kassel  this  is  my  Opinion  :  First,  since  it  is  conveyed  therein  that  those 
who  speak,  wish  to  and  shall  teach  according  to  the  Apology  or  Confession, 
I  cannot  and  do  not  know  to  reject  such  a  Concordia  for  my  own  person. 

"  Second,  since  they  clearly  confess  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  truly  and 
essentially  offered  in  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  bread,  that  it  is  received  and 
eaten,  etc.  ;  in  case  their  heart  stands  as  the  words  read  ;  I  also  this  time  do 
not  know  to  cast  blame  upon  the  words. 

"  In  the  third  place,  since  nevertheless  this  matter  has  from  the  beginning 
made  a  deep  and  wide  rent,  and  because  even  at  the  present  time,  it  is 
scarcely  believed  on  our  side  that  the  others  mean  it  as  purely  as  the  words 
read,  and  the  fear  is  still  strong  that  some  of  them  are  almost  enemies  of 
our  name  and  faith,  I  regard  it  as  useful  and  good,  that  the  Concordia  be  not 
so  suddenly  concluded,   in  order  that  their  party  does  not  hasten  too  quickly 


FROM   1530    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  579 

elastic  compromise  formulas  (like  the  Wittenberg  Concordia 
of  1536),  which  concealed  the  real  difference,  and  in  the 
end  satisfied  neither  party.  .  .  .  We  may  regard  the  Stras- 
burg  Confession  as  the  first  attempt  at  an  evangelical  union 
symbol.  But  Bncer's  love  for  union  was  an  obstacle  to  the 
success  of  his  confession^  which  never  took  deep  root.  .  .  . 
Bucer  himself  remained  true  to  his  creed,  and  reconfessed 
it  in  his  last  will  and  testament  (1548),  and  on  his  death- 
bed." " 

Because  of  the  various  alterations  Melanchthon  had  made 
in  his  writings,  and  his  compromising  attitude  with  the  Re- 
formed, as  well  as  the  fact,  no  doubt,  that  he  had  not  been 
quite  open  and  true  to  Luther,  in  liis  growing  relations  and 
doctrinal  agreement  with  Bucer,  the  years  1536-1538  were 
exceedingly  uncomfortable  for  Melanchthon,  on  account  of 
the  strained  relations;  so  that  he  compares  himself  to  a 
Prometheus  ad  Caucasum  alUgatus  (C.  R.  Ill,  606),  and 
writes  to  Camerarius  (Nov.,  1539) :  "Me  dolores  animi,  quo 
tuli  toto  triennio  acerbissimos  et  continuos,  et  caeterae 
quotidianae  aerumnae  ita  consumserunt,  ut  verear  me  din 
vivere  non  posse." 

By  1539  Protestantism  had  become  mighty.  Duke  George 
had  died  and  his  brother  Henry  introduced  the  Evangelical 
faith  into  Sachsen,  to  the  great  joy  of  the  people.  The  three 
clerical  Electors,  the  archbishop  of  Maintz,  Kolu  and  Treves, 
were  speaking  of  making  their  provinces  secular  and  joining 


and  that  division  does  not  arise  among  ourselves.  For  our  people  also  have 
a  right  in  the  matter  which  is  not  my  own  or  that  of  any  one  else  alone  ;  but 
If  a  more  friendly  manner  were  to  arise  toward  each  other  out  of  the  words 
laid  down,  it  would  readily  show  Itself  in  time,  whether  their  meaning  wa", 
pure  and  right,  or  whether  there  was  something  more  behind,  in  order  that 
such   a  concord  would  not  later  turn  into   a  worse  discord. 

"  They  could  meanwhile  soften  the  suspicion  and  rancor  for  our  party,  and 
then  at  last  drop  it  ;  and  after  the  turbid  water  had  then  settled  itself  on  both 
sides,  one  could  conclude  a  true  and  stable  unity,  which  would  be  accepted 
willingly  and  spontaneously  by  all,  with  the  good  of  all,  without  suspicion, 
and  from  the  right  ground,  and  which  probably  cannot,  at  least  not  easily, 
come  to  pass  without  further  interviews  and  experience." — Hist.  d.  Sacra- 
■mcntsstreits.  216;   Walch,  XVII,   2496;  De   Wette,  IV,  589;  Erlangen,    LV,   85. 

"  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  p.  526,  529. 


580        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  Protestants,  thus  bringing  a  Protestant  majority  into  the 
Imperial  Electorate,  so  that  the  next  Emperor  would  be  a 
Protestant.  Breslau,  Bavaria,  Austria  and  Bohemia  were 
rapidly  becoming  Protestant.  The  Emperor  Charles  was 
thoroughly  alarmed,  and  he  instituted  the  compromise  Con- 
ferences at  Hagenau,  Worms  and  Kegensburg. 

In  1539-1540  Melanchthon  was  still  most  busily  engaged 
in  ecclesiastical  work,  at  the  convention  in  Frankfort,  in  the 
introduction  of  the  Keformation  in  the  Duchy  of  Sachsen 
and  Meissen,  at  the  second  convention  in  Schmalkald,  as 
also  with  the  founding  of  the  Leipzig  University. 

The  Schmalkald  League  bad,  some  time  before,  requested 
the  theologians  to  confirm  the  Augsburg  Confession  with 
further  arguments  from  Scripture  and  from  the  Fathers; 
and  on  the  heels  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  i.  e.,  not  very 
long  thereafter,  Melanchthon  made  the  famous  alteration  in 
the  tenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  A  comparison 
with  the  Wittenberg  Concord  will  justify  the  assumption 
that  Melanchthon  desired  to  yield  to  the  actually  existing 
union  with  the  Highlanders ;  for,  as  Kolde  says,  ''  if  at  the 
same  time,  he  omitted  the  vere  et  suhstantialiter  adesse  and 
the  improhaiio,  we  need  not  harbor  any  doubts  that  with 
the  gradually  changing  conception  in  his  mind  about  the 
Lord's  Supper,  he  desired  to  leave  a  possibility  open  for 
himself  and  others  to  go  along  with  tlie  Swiss  theologians." 

We  have  seen  that  the  Elector  disapproved  Melanchthon's 
alterations  in  1537 ;  but  Luther  remained  silent,  except  that 
the  situation  with  respect  to  the  Pope  had  called  forth  from 
him,  at  the  request  of  the  Elector,  tlie  Schmalkald  Articles, 
in  the  signing  of  which,  IMelanchtliou  gave  offence  to  the 
other  Reformers.  Melanchthon's  signature  reads  thus:  "I, 
Philip  Melanchthon,  also  approve  the  above  articles  as  right 
and  Christian.  But  concerning  the  Pope,  I  hold,  that  if  he 
would  allow  tlie  Gospel,  for  tlie  sake  of  the  peace  and  general 
unity  of  Christians  who  now  are  under  him,  and  may  be 
under  him  hereafter,  his  superiority  over  the  Bishops,  which 


FROM   15  30   TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  581 

he  otherwise  possesses,  should  also  be  conceded  by  us  jure 
hurnano." 

Luther  no  doubt  felt  much  grieved  at  tlie  changes  of 
Melanchthon  toward  him  and  his  teaching,  and,  says  Scliaff, 
"  was  strongly  pressed  by  contracted  and  suspicious  minds 
to  denounce  them  openly ;  but  he  was  too  noble  and  generous 
to  dissolve  a  long  and  invaluable  friendship,  which  forms  one 
of  the  brightest  cha])ters  in  his  life  and  in  the  history  of  the 
German  Reformation."  " 

However,  the  friendship  of  the  two  Reformers  was  sus- 
pended for  a  time.  In  1537,  the  chancellor,  Briick,  reported 
to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  that  "  Luther  seemed  to  be  troubled 
because  he  could  not  tell  how  Philip  regarded  the  sacrament, 
and  because  it  looked  as  if  Melanchthon,  since  his  return 
from  Cassel,  had  become  almost  Zwinglian  in  his  views. 
Luther  did  not  know  what  Philip  believed  in  his  heart,  but 
it  seemed  strange  that  he  shoidd  recommend  the  giving  of 
the  sacrament  in  one  kind.  If  Melanchthon  persisted  in  his 
opinion,  then  the  Word  of  God  must  come  first.  He  would 
pray  for  Philip.  If,  for  the  sake  of  tyrants  and  of  the  pre- 
servation of  the  peace,  the  sacrament  might  be  administered 
in  one  kind,  it  would  be  necessary,  on  the  same  principle, 
to  concede  justification  by  w^orks."  "  I  think,''  added  the 
chancellor,  "  that  it  would  do  no  harm  if  Dr.  IMartin  should 
speak  earnestly  and  cordially  with  Philip." 

Meantime,  trouble  Lad  arisen  from  another  source.  The 
doctrines  of  sin  and  grace,  of  faith  and  justification  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel  in  the  Catechisms,  were  being  menaced  by  Agi'icola 
of  Eisleben,  who  had  removed  to  Wittenberg.  Luther  very 
sorrowfully  and  unwillingly  testified  publicly  against  the 
false  teaching  in  1588  and  1539,  and  published  his  book 
against  the  Antinomians.  Agricola  abused  Luther  for  his 
utterances,  but  left  Wittenberg  before  the  case  came  to  trial. 


i^'Schaff.  Creeds  I,  p.  265. 


582         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

The  controversy  broke  out  again  later  in  the  middle  of  the 
century. 

In  the  midst  of  many  labors  and  travels,  and  terrible  self- 
reproaches  and  fears  regarding  the  second  marriage,  at 
which  he  was  an  unwilling  guest,  of  his  and  Bucer's  friend, 
the  restless  Reformer,  Philip  of  Hesse,  Melanchthon  sud- 
denly grew  sick  unto  death,  at  Worms,  but  was  recalled  to 
life  by  the  mighty  faith  of  Luther,  and,  in  this  same  year 
1540,  gave  to  the  press  his  "Variata."  " 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  Luther's  words 
to  Melanchthon  of  June  18,  1540,  "  Nos  tecum  et  tu  nohis- 
cum,  et  Chrisius  hie  et  ihi  nohiscum"  were  written  with  or 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  "  Variata." 

The  difference  in  ^Melanchthon's  text  was  first  pointed  out 
to  the  shame  of  the  Lutherans  by  a  Roman  Catholic,  in  1541. 
The  man  who  had  the  satisfaction  of  putting  his  finger  on 
this  breakdown  of  Lutheran  doctrine  was  no  other  than  John 
Eck,  the  old  enemy  of  Luther,  in  the  discussion  with  Me- 


'«'■  Melanchthon  himself  materially  changed  the  tenth  article  in  the  edition 
of   1540." — Schaff   Creeds   I.  p.    232. 

•'  The  S3trong  opposition  of  Melanchthon  to  Zwingli'.-!  theory  before  1536  or 
1540,   whe7i  he  viodified  his  own   view  on   the   Eucharist." — lb. 

"  The  explanations  and  modifications  of  Melanchthon  himself  in  the  edition 
of  1540,  extended,  as  it  were,  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  them." — lb.,  p.   235. 

"  The  altered  edition  of  1540  .  .  .  represents  .  .  .  the  present  theological 
convictions  of  a  very  large  party  in  that  [Lutheran]  denomination." — lb., 
p.  242. 

"  The  edition  of  1540,  which  appeared  in  connection  with  an  Improved 
edition  of  the  Apology,  differs  so  widely  from  the  first  that  it  was  sub.sequent;y 
called  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  {Vanata),  in  distinction  from  the 
Unaltered    {Invariata)    of   1530  or   1531. 

"It  attracted  little  attention  till  after  the  death  of  Melanchthon  (1560), 
when  it  created  as  much  trouble  as  the  insertion  of  the  filioque  clause  in  the 
Nicene  Creed.  The  Altered  Confession,  besides  a  large  number  of  valuable 
additions  and  real  improvements  in  style  and  the  order  of  subjects,  em- 
bodies the  changes  in  Melanchthon's  theology,  which  may  be  dated  from  the 
new  edition  of  his  Loci  Communes,  1535,  and  his  personal  contact  with  Bucer 
and  Calvin.  He  gave  up,  on  the  one  hand,  his  vitwf  on  absolute  predestination, 
and  gradually  adopted  the  synergistic  theory  (which  brought  him  nearer  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  system)  ;  while  on  the  oth-?r  hand  (departing  further  from 
Romanism  and  approaching  nearer  to  the  Reformed  Church),  he  modified  the 
Lutheran  theory  of  the  real  presence,  at  least  so  far  as  to  allow  the  Re- 
formed doctrine  the  same  right  in  the  evangelical  churches.  ...  In  other 
words,  the  article  is  so  changed  that  Calvin  could  give  it  his  hearty  consent, 
and  even  Zwingli — with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  word  truly — might  have 
admitted   It."— /6.,   pp.    240,    241. 


FROM    15  30    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  583 

lanchthon  and  Bucer  at  Worms,"  which  was  continued  at 
Regensburg. 

The  discussion  was  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor,  and 
resulted  finally  in  the  Regensburg  Interim,  which  granted 
peace  to  all  Protestants  in  the  League,  but  also  obligated 
them  (and  them  only)  to  all  articles  on  which  agreement 
had  been  reached  with  the  Roman  Catholics.  Melanchthon 
was  the  principal  theologian  of  the  Protestants. 

As  Melanchthon  was  a  dialectician  in  dealing  with  truths, 
so  he  was  a  diplomat  in  dealing  with  men.  Xow  a  diplomat 
looks  at  movements  and  at  truth  itself,  pragmatically,  rather 
than  intrinsically,  that  is,  he  looks  at  it  for  what  it  will  yield 
him  in  his  present  situation,  and  not  for  wliat  it  commands 
him  in  every  situation.  A  humanist  who  is  a  diplomat  must 
be  an  unswevering  man  of  grace,  if  he  can  preserve  his  men- 
tal habit  unspotted,  and  retain  it  in  loyal  allegiance  to  the 
sharp  corners  of  truth,  without  trying  to  file  down  and 
accomodate. 

At  Regensburg,  Melanchthon  was,  for  once,  disgusted 
with  conciliatory  diplomacy ;  '*  the  Lutherans  were  dis- 
gusted at  the  compromising  formula  agreed  on  in  phrasing 
the  cardinal  principle  of  tlie  Reformation;"  and  the  Em- 
peror was  disgusted  with  the  obstinacy  with  which  Melanch- 
thon clung  to  the  evangelical  position  in  the  articles  of  the 
Sacraments  (tliis  pleased  Luther),  Oral  Confession,  and  the 
Church.*" 

By  1543,  the  unionistic  understanding  of  ^[elanehthon 
and  Bucer  had  gone  so  far,   that,   in  the  Reformation  of 


'^  Melanchthon  desired  to  base  the  discussion  on  the  'Variata'  of  the  Augs- 
burg  Confession.  Eck  objected  because  it  was  altered.  Melanchthon  replied 
that  there  was  no  alteration  in  the  substance,  but  only  that  language  milder 
and  clearer  had  been  used.     Then  Eck  put  his  finger  on  article  X. 

^* "  Conciliationes,  quae  nullae  fieri  possunt,  nisi  fucosae,  sycophantias, 
sophismata,  quibus  vel  Principes  ipsi  vel  eorum  theologi  insidias  nobis  struent" 
(C.  R.,   IV,   116). 

'"  "  Justificari   per   fidam   vivam   et   efflcarem." 

*"  Melanchthon  had  come  to  Worms  with  the  intention  of  defending  the 
doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  of  not  conceding  to  Rome,  and  he 
was  quite  successful. 


584        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Cologne,  to  which  Melanchthou  had  heen.  repeatedly  in- 
vited,"'* he  prepared  the  articles  on  the  Trinity,  Creation, 
Original  Sin,  Justitieation  by  Faith,  the  Church  and  Repen- 
tance, which  were  assigned  to  him ;  while  Bncer — certainly 
with  Melanchthon's  approval — wrote  the  articles  on  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Snpper ! 

Luther  had  borne  much  in  silence  up  to  this  time,  out  of 
regard  for  the  feelings  and  the  great  services  of  his  friend ; 
but  now  he  was  openly  provoked  by  the  way  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  dealt  with  in  the  Cologne  Book." 
It  was  Bucer's,  but  ]\Ielanchthon  had  approved  it,  and 
Luther  was  indignant  because  of  what  it  failed  to  say.  He 
looked  in  it  in  vain  for  any  positive  statement  of  the  real 
presence.'^  Luther  strongly  censured  Bucer  from  the 
pulpit,'*  though  he  did  not  even  at  this  time  mention 
Melanchthon's  name.  But  it  was  felt  tliat  his  blame  was  for 
more  than  one.  All  intercourse  between  the  two  Beformers 
ceased,  and  Melanchthon  lived  in  daily  dread  of  an  open 
rupture.  Luther  soon  thereafter  pnblislied  his  "  Short 
Catechism  Concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,"  against  the 
Zwinglians,  though  it  contained  no  word  or  thought  against 
Melanchthon. 

Melanchthon,  on  his  part,  privately  "  complained  at  times 
of  Luther's  overbearing  violence  of  temper,  and  thought  once 
(1544)    seriously  of  leaving  Wittenberg  as  a   'prison.'"'* 

But  in  iSTovember  of  this  year  (1544),  Chancellor  Briick 
reported  to  the  Elector :  "  I  can  not  learn  anything  from 
Philip,  but  that  he  and  Luther  are  good  friends."  This  was 
Melanchthon's  year  of  personal  affliction  and  personal  sor- 
row.   In  quick  succession  came  the  Diet  at  Worms,  the  writ- 


s'^* By  the  arrhbishop  and  elector  of  Cologne  to  superintend  the  introduction 
of   the   Reformation    into   these   territories. 

*'  For  the  language  Itself  of  the  Cologne  Book,  see  Seckendorf,  Hist.  Luth., 
p.  446. 

^^  For  Luther's  remarks,   see  Luthci-'s  Lcttrra,  De  Wette  V,  709. 

'■'^  For  Luther's  utterances  from  the  pulpit,   see  C.  R.,  V,   478. 

•^  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  2G5. 


FROM    1530    TO    LUTHER'S   DEATH.  585 

ing  of  the  Wittenberg  Reformation,"*  and  the  Conference  at 
Ratisbon.  Luther  wished  to  keep  Melanchthon  away  from 
Ratisbon.  "  The  ceaseless  round  of  fruitless  colloquies,  dis- 
cussions, disputations,  and  the  vain  attempts  at  accommoda- 
tion or  compromise  in  which  the  mild-mannered  Melanch- 
thon,  who  enjoyed  nothing  so  much  as  the  privacy  of  the 
study,  had  been  engaged  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  were 
enough  to  move  the  heart  of  .  .  .  his  noble  minded  friend 
...  to  desire  that  he  might  at  last  be  spared  the  useless 
infliction.  .  .  .  The  fact  is  that  the  two  great  champions 
of  the  Reformation  were  at  this  time  on  good  terms  with 
each  other.  .  .  .  Philip  frequently  came  as  of  old  and 
dined  at  Dr.  Martin's  table,  and  twice  they  journeyed  in 
each  other's  company  to  Mansfeldt."  "^  Luther  "  spoke  very 
highly  of  Melanchthon's  *  Loci '  in  March,  1545,  and  in 
January,  1546,  he  called  him  a  true  man,  who  must  be  re- 
tained in  Wittenberg,  else  half  the  university  would  go  off 
with  him."  ^' 

Yet  the  sky  darkened  on  all  sides.  TTot  only  was  a  new 
generation  growing  up  with  modified  views,  but  the  Em- 
peror was  following  hard  on  the  trail  of  Protestantism,  the 
Schmalkald  League  was  injured  and  weakening,  soon  would 
come  the  ban  against  Philip  of  Hesse  and  the  Elector  John 
Frederick,  with  the  treachery  of  Maurice  and  the  opening 
of  the  Schmalkald  "War.  Luther's  "  dissatisfaction  with  the 
affairs  in  Wittenberg  (which  he  threatened  to  leave  perma- 
nently in  1544)  cast  a  cloud  over  his  declining  years."" 
Thus  Luther  died.  On  the  day  following  his  death  (Feb.  18, 
1546),  Melanchthon  said  to  his  students:     "  Ohiit  auriga  et 


^♦^  This  was  a  pamphlet  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  Elector,  and  sent 
to  the  Council  of  Trent  as  a  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran 
Reformation. 

=^  Stump,  Melanchthon,   183,    184. 

•*  Schaff  I,  p.  265,  referring  to  Corp.  Reform. ,  VI,  p.  10 ;  Gieseler  IV, 
pp.   432-435. 

'^  lb.,  I,  260. 


586        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

currus  Israel,  qui  rexit  ecclesiani  in  hac  tiUiina  senecta 
mundi,"  and  added,  " Amemus  igitur  hujus  viri  niemoriam 
ct  genus  docirinae  ah  ipso  tradiiutn,  et  simus  modestiores  ei 
consideremus  ingentes  calamitates  et  muiationes  magnas, 
quae  liunc  casuni  sunt  secuturae." 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

PROTESTANTISM  FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  LUTHER 

TO  THE  DEATH  OF  MELANCHTHON"  AND 

TO  THE  DISINTEGRATION  OF 

LUTHERANISM. 

Years  of  Reaction — Melanchthon  Leader — Political  Events,  1546-1555 — Augs- 
burg and  Leipzig  Interims,  Maurice — The  Papacy  and  the  Empire  in  these 
Events — The  Controversies  : — Adiaphoristic — Osiandrian  —  The  Two  Great 
Parties — Majoristic — Antinomistic — Crypto-Calvinism — pAicharistic  —  Synergistic 
— Melanchthon  a  Synergist — Corpus  Philippicum — Partisan  Warfare  —  Dire 
Results. 

THE  death  of  Luther,  on  "  Concordia  "  day,  ushered  in 
years  of  reaction  and  internal  weakness — years  of 
external  pressure  and  oppression:  the  second  generation  of 
Lutheranism  came  to  the  front,  with  waverings  toward  the 
common  foe  without,  and  disintegrations  and  hardenings  into 
local  territorial  units,  under  the  separatistic  action  of  the 
princes  and  their  theologians. 

Providence  sends  one  great  leader,  but  rarely  continues 
the  succession.  The  work  in  this  instance  was  left  to 
Luther's  contemporaries,  and  their  successors.  Of  his  con- 
temporaries, Melanchthon  was  chief.  The  spirit  of  Melanch- 
thon was  not  that  of  a  witness  or  confessor,  but  that  of  a 
scholar  and  teacher,  a  definer,  a  discriminator,  and  a  sys- 
tematizer. 

Melanchthon  was  now  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  Re- 
formation.    He  became  again  involved  in  negotiations  with 

587 


588         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  Papists,  to  whom  he  made  the  most  remarkable  con- 
cessions. His  conuection  with  the  Leipzig  Interim  (1548), 
was  the  most  unfortunate  act  of  his  life.  Under  the  form 
of  an  apparent  compromise,  he  yielded  many  of  the  most 
essential  points  of  difference.  "  He  was  willing  to  tolerate 
both  a  popedom  and  a  hierarchy,  stripped,  however,  of  divine 
rights,  and  deprived  of  all  power  in  matters  of  faith.  The 
relation  of  faith  to  works,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
might,  in  his  estimation,  be  veiled  in  a  judicious  obscurity 
of  phrase." 

In  every  part  of  the  evangelical  Church  the  Interim  was 
most  violently  resisted,  and  Melanchthon's  connection  with  it 
strongly  condemned.  In  addition  to  private  rebukes  from 
Calvin  and  Brentius,  Agricola,  Flacius,  and  others,  publicly 
attacked  him. 

In  1550,  Melanchthon  published  his  Explanation  of  the 
Nicene  Creed;  and  in  the  succeeding  year,  the  Confessio 
Saxonica,  in  which  he  had  gained  courage  to  entirely  re- 
pudiate the  concessions  of  the  Interim.  In  1552,  he  was  en- 
gaged in  a  controversy  with  Osiander,  who  had  confounded 
justification  with  sanctification ;  in  1553,  he  published  brief 
treatises  against  Scliwenkfeld  and  Stancar :  and  in  1554,  his 
Examen  Ordinandorum,  a  brief  outline  of  doctrinal,  ethical, 
and  polemical  theology^  for  the  use  of  candidates  for  the 
ministry. 

Even  during  Luther's  life,  where  the  gap  left  by  Luther's 
Living  Witness  seemed  too  abrupt,  Melanchthon  had  busied 
himself,  not  solely  with  the  amplification  of  the  pure 
doctrine,  bnt  also  in  the  attempt  to  build  bridges  between  it 
and  Roman  or  Reformed  doctrine.  IMelanchthon,  the  har- 
monizer,  had  an  eye  to  connections  -without,  especially  in 
times  of  danger,  rather  than  an  eye  single  for  the  inner 
strength.  More  and  more  during  Luther's  later  life,  in 
order  to  make  connections  with  those  without,  he  came  near 
boring  holes  in  the  side  of  the  newly  launched  vessel  which, 
nevertheless,   continued   for   a  time  to  hold  together  after 


FROM    15  If  6    TO    15G0.  589 

Luther's  death,  through  the  power  of  the  truth  and  of 
Luther's  testimony. 

As  the  chief  teacher  and  trainer  of  the  rising  generation, 
exceedingly  attractive  to  young  men,  by  his  learning,  hia 
affection,  his  piety  and  his  admirable  spirit,  Melanchthon 
threw  into  the  Church  a  race  of  leaders,  that  were  not 
Scriptural  confessors  of  the  faith  chiefly,  like  Luther,  but 
definers  of  doctrines,  makers  of  formulas,  and  repairers  of 
ravages  created  by  disputations. 

Up  to  the  death  of  Luther,  speaking  roughly,  the  positive 
building  process,  as  to  inner  doctrinal  construction,  and  as  to 
outer  constitutional  organization,  had  made  progress  in  the 
conservative  Evangelical  Church  with  the  valuable  help  of 
Melanchthon  himself.  The  great  living  doctrines  were  being 
turned  into  literature,  into  life  and  into  praxis.  The  tree 
was  growing  from  its  own  inner  sap,  and  was  becoming  all 
the  more  hearty  in  standing  by  itself,  in  the  healthful  open- 
ness of  wind  and  sun  and  storm,  and  apart  from  the  shadows 
of  the  surrounding  forests. 

But  Melanchthon's  mind,  even  at  this  time,  like  that  of 
conformable  natures,  whose  instinct  it  is  to  grow  by  leaning 
on  supports,  rather  than  by  being  braced  up  in  the  strength 
of  the  life-blood  within,  was  busy  in  throwing  out  tendrils 
toward  trellises  and  walls  rising  on  foundations  without  the 
pale  of  Lutheranism.  A  great  exterior  harmony  of  the 
whole,  especially  under  political  persecution,  to  such  natures, 
is  more  to  be  desired  than  inner  solidity  that  slowly  wins  its 
way  through  the  compact  growth  of  a  self-consistent  life. 


THE    BREAK-UP   OF   PROTESTANTISM. 

From  the  death  of  Luther,  the  concord  that  had  existed, 

externally,  in  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Churches  died  away. 

He  had  hardly  closed  his  eyes  before  discord,  apparently  at 

times  a  sign  of  coming  dissolution,  broke  out  on  every  hand. 

The  fact  is  that  Luther  himself  had  foreseen  the  arrival  of 
'41 


590         THE   LUTHERAN   C 0 N FE S iSI 0 N S. 

this  roaction.'  Schaff  admits  that  Luther  had  kept  down 
the  rising  antagonism  against  Melanchthon  "  by  the  weight 
of  his  personal  authority,  although  he  foresaw  approaching 
troubles." 

Luther  had  scarcely  been  dead  for  four  months  before 
the  Pope  entered  into  a  secret  covenant  with  the  Emperor 
to  exterminate  Protestantism  in  Germany,  and  to  forcibly 
compel  the  Protestants  to  return  to  the  allegiance  of  the 
Pope,  binding  himself,  on  his  part,  to  help  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  a  resort  to  arms  against  the  evangelical  states. 
This  was  in  June,  15-lG.  The  Emperor  also  made  a  secret 
treaty,  a  few  days  before,  with  Duke  Maurice  of  Saxony, 
who,  to  gain  the  electorate  of  Saxony,  now  agreed  to  submit 
to  the  coming  decree  of  Trent. 

The  two  foremost  political  leaders  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  the  elector  John  Frederick  of  Saxony  and  the 
Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse  were  captured  and  imprisoned 
as  rebels  and  vassals.  The  whole  of  South  Germany  and, 
except  a  few  Protestant  cities,  north  Germany  also,  was  con- 
quered  by   the   emperor.      Thus   misfortune   followed   mis- 


'  The  year  after  the  presentation  of  the  Confession  at  Augsburg  (1531), 
Luther,  preaching  on  John  VI  and  VII,  had  declared  that  "  the  Gospel  will 
abide  among  you  for  a  short  time  only,  after  the  heads  of  those  who  preach 
it  now  have  been  laid  in  the  dust.  After  our  death  it  will  not  remain  ;  for 
It  is  not  possible  that  it  can  remain.  The  Gospel  has  its  course,  runs  from 
one  city  to  another,  is  here  to-day  and  at  another  spot  to-morrow.  Believe 
It  and  honor  it  while  you  have  it.  It  will  not  abide  with  you  always.  Tell 
me  again  in  twenty  years  from  now,  how  (he  matter  will  stand.  Others  will 
come  and   preach   to   please   the   devil." — Walch   VII.    p.    2306-2308. 

TVTien  Luther  was  sick  at  Schmalkald  in  1537,  he  told  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  that  after  his  death,  discord  would  break  out  in  the  University  of 
Wittenberg,  and  his  doctrine  would  be  changed. — Seckendorf  Com.  dc  Luther- 
anismo   III,    165. 

Nine  years  later,  shortly  before  his  death  in  1546,  he  preached  at  Witten- 
berg, saying :  "  Up  to  this  time  you  have  had  the  real  and  true  Word ;  but 
beware  of  your  supposed  prudence.  The  devil  will  light  the  light  of  reason 
and  lead  you  from  the  path  of  Faith.  I  see  before  my  eyes  that  if  God  does 
not  give  us  true  preachers  and  servants,  the  devil  will  tear  our  church  to 
pieces  by  evil  agitators.  That  is  his  definite  object.  If  he  cannot  do  it  by 
the  hand  of  the  Pope  and  the  emperor,  he  will  accomplish  it  through  those 
vrho  are  in  agreement  with  us  in  doctrine.  Pray  earnestly  that  the  Word 
may  be  left  to  us,  for  things  will  come  to  a  dreadful  pass."  Walch  XII,  1534. 
To  Schurf  Luther  is  reported  to  have  declared :  "  After  my  death,  none  of 
these   theologians   will   remain   firm." — 76.,   p.    1538. 

» Reserving  the  points,  justification  by  faith,  the  cup  for  the  laity,  and 
the  marriage  of  priests,  as  permissible  in  his  own  domain. 


FROM   1546    TO    1560.  591 

fortune  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  until,  nine  years  later,  the 
religious  Peace  of  Augsburg  (1555)  ^vas  secured  against 
Rome,  assuring  all  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of 
religious  freedom,  in  which  benefit  the  Calvinists  also  were 
rightly  included. 

During  this  period,  the  Pope  had  proposed  to  win  over  the 
Protestants,  now  broken  in  spirit  and  shorn  of  their  power, 
by  the  Augsburg  Interim,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion was  sacrificed,  seven  sacraments  were  recognized,  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  maintained,  and  the 
mass  was  interpreted  as  a  thank  offering.  All  the  Iloman 
ceremonialism  was  retained.  Most  Protestant  princes  ac- 
cepted the  Interim,  but  the  faithful  pastors,  especially  in 
Southern  Germany,  did  not,  and  were  banislied  by  hundreds. 

Melanchthon,  the  surviving  leader,  valiantly  attacked  the 
Interim,  and  in  1548  published  the  first  public  writing 
against  it.  He  also  declared  that  if  Luther  had  lived,  this 
change  of  doctrine  would  not  now  threaten  the  churches, 
which  are  being  destroyed,  and  the  conflicts,  which  are  now 
raging,  would  not  have  arisen.  But  before  long,  Melanch- 
thon became  terrified  at  the  threats  of  the  emperor's  anger, 
and  ])aved  the  way  for  the  Lei})zig  Interim,  which  was  based, 
ostensibly,  on  the  principle  that  the  pure  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  was  to  be  maintained,  and  that  concessions  to  Rome 
were  to  be  made  only  in  regard  to  adiaphora.  The  effect  of  this 
Interim  was  to  obscure  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, vi2;.,  that  of  justification  by  faith,  and  to  express  it  in 
an  indefinite  formula ;  to  readmit  episcopal  jurisdiction, 
and  all  Roman  ceremonies  and  observances.  Melanchthon 
thus  became  the  author  of  a  movement  which  not  only  almost 
wiped  out  the  specific  character  of  Protestantism  in  the  eyes 
of  the  people,  but  which  at  once  gave  rise  to  the  adiaphoristic 
and  the  other  controversies,  which  the  Formula  of  Concord 
was  obliged  to  settle.  Schaff  admits  that  Melanchthon,  "  not 
without  blamable  weakness,  gave  his  sanction  to  the  Leipzig 
Interim,   and  undertook  to  act  as  a  mediator  between  the 


592         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Emperor,  or  his  Protestant  ally  Maurice,  and  the  Protestant 
conscience.  It  was  the  greatest  mistake  of  his  life.  .  .  . 
The  venerable  man  was  fiercely  assailed  from  every  qiiarUT 
by  friend  and  foe.' 

It  is  usual  to  attribute  tlie  dreadful  controversies  of  these 
dark  days  to  the  doctrinal  extremists,  and  to  the  polemical 
spirit  of  a  more  rigid  Lutheranism ;  and  to  assume  that  if 
the  ways  of  the  peace-loving  jMelanchthon '  had  been  fol- 
lowed, the  whole  Lutlieran  Churcli  might  have  lived  then, 
and  thenceforward  thereafter,  in  harmony  and  peace.  The 
real  fact  is  that  the  peace-loving  Melanchthon  was  partly  the 
victim,  and  partly  the  author  not  only  of  such  theological 
controversies  as  that  of  the  adiaphora,  but  of  conditions  in- 
viting actual  war ;  for  internal  weakness  invites  war.  And 
to  some  minds  it  is  a  question,  whether,  if  Melanchthon's 
method  had  ultimately  prevailed,  there  would  be  any 
Lutheran  Church  to-day;  not  because  Melanchthon  himself 
would  have  surrendered  it,  but  because  his  method  was  one 
that  leads  to  the  destruction  of  Lutheranism.  As  it  was, 
in  the  Interim  Melanchthon  came  very  nearly  sacrificing  at 
Leipzig  all  that  had  boon  gained  in  the  struggle  with  the 
papacy  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.* 

However,  let  us  not  be  unjust  to  Melanchthon;  as  we  ask 


'  Schaff  also  mentions  the  temporal  gains  and  incidental  advantages  of 
Melanchthon's  course. — Creeds  I,  p.  300. 

*  For  instance,  Schaff,  in  his  Creeds  I,  p.  266,  says :  "  After  his  death 
(154G),  the  war  broke  out  with  unrestrained  violence.  Melanchthon  was  too 
modest,  peaceful,  and  gentle  for  the  theological  leadership,  which  now  de- 
volved upon  him  ;  he  kept  aloof  from  strife  as  far  as  possible,  preferring  to 
bear    injury    and    insult    with    Christian    meekness." 

On  this  we  would  remark :  1st,  That  Melanchthon  and  his  principles  were 
in  large  measure  responsible  (barring  Osiander)  for  the  internal  strife  of 
this  period,  and  that  he  failed  to  realize  the  unfitness  of  his  own  principle  for 
leadership  ;  2d,  That  Luther  had  been  a  restraining  influene  to  shield  Melanch- 
thon for  years  ;  3d,  That  while  Melanchthon  did  not  engage  in  bitter  strife, 
he  still  desired  to  lead,  and  did  lead,  in  negotiations  that  resulted  in  obscurity 
and  strife ;  4th,  That  "  preferring  to  bear  injury  and  insult  with  Christian 
meekness  "  is  often  the  outer  attitude  of  men  who  nurse  defeat  in  their  heart, 
and  in  private  censoriously  and  bitterly  condemn  those  from  whom  they 
differ.  This  was  not  so  fully  the  case  with  Melanchthon,  but  the  Schafflan 
"  meekness  "  has  its  types  in  every  age. 

"  Comp.  Seeberg.  "Melanchthon  had  two  souls:"  and  Koldr  (infra,  p.  643), 
"His  weak  conduct  in  the  Interim  matter  and  the  controversies  arising  there- 
from, changed  the  entire  state  of  affairs." 


FBOM    ir>J,6    TO    1560.  593 

all  others,  that  they  be  not  unjust  to  those  later  leaders  who 
saw  the  necessity  for  another  general  Confession  of  the 
Church,  and  who  brought  about  the  existence  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  Even  the  strongest  men  do  not  really  uphold 
and  preserve  the  Church,  and  cannot  spare  it  from  meeting 
its  appointed  testing.  Sooner  or  later  the  Church  must  pass 
through  the  darkness  of  inner  and  outer  crisis.  Like  the 
Confession  of  Augsburg,  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  the 
result,  not  of  men's  contrivings,  but  of  the  Lord's  doings, 
Who  enabled  the  Church  to  work  out,  resume  and  reassert 
her  integrity  after  forty  years  of  civil,  political,  and  re- 
ligious anarchy. 

We  must  never  forget  that  the  strong  hand  of  the  papacy 
and  the  strong  arm  of  the  empire  were  unitedly  arrayed 
against  Protestantism,  which  was  not  yet  thirty  years  old 
when  Luther  died.  After  the  power  of  Luther's  presence 
was  withdrawn  from  tlie  field,  these  foes  from  without  made 
their  advances  on  the  Church,  employing  not  only  arms,  but, 
as  is  always  the  case  with  liome,  tlie  insidious  means  of 
theological  and  political  diplomacy.  Theological  strife  and 
rebellion  were  stirred  up  within  by  the  agencies  of  the  Pope, 
and  imperial  pressure  was  put  upon  the  Church  without. 
What  had  been  stayed  temporarily  by  the  strong  hand  of 
Luther,  and  by  the  Confession  at  Augsburg,  now  broke  like 
a  storm  over  the  Church  in  her  period  of  weakness  and  re- 
action. Neither  a  rigid  Lutheranism,  nor  a  softer  Melanch- 
thonianism,  was  responsible  for  that  part  of  the  situation 
which  arose  from  the  historically  necessary  unfolding  and 
permanent  application,  under  outward  pressure  and  by  a 
second  generation,  of  the  principles  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession to  existing  theory,  institutions  and  ecclesiastical 
practice.  And  what  came  forth  from  this  time  of  terrible 
testing,  should,  in  all  justice,  be  regarded  as  not  less  precious 
in  result  than  that  which  came  forth  in  the  earlier  struggles 
culminating  in  Augsburg." 


*  Schaff,    speaking    of    the    Formula    of    Concord,    admits    that,    "  These    con- 


594        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

To  suppose  that  the  conditions  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
after  the  death  of  Luther  and  prior  to  the  internal  and  the- 
ological peace  brought  about  by  the  Formula  of  C^oncord, 
were  the  result  of  an  over-emphasis  of  the  Confessional 
principle,  whether  by  Luther  himself,  or  by  second-rate  con- 
troversialists who  followed  him,  is  as  far  away  from  the  truth 
as  it  is  to  suppose  that  this  mighty  crisis  might  have  been 
averted  and  tliis  impetuous  torrent  stemmed,  if  the  Church 
had  followed  the  way  of  Melanchthon. 

Dr.  Krauth  truly  says,  "  The  time  of  deluge  had  come, 
the  world  had  to  be  purified  ;  and  it  was  useless  to  send  out 
the  dove  till  the  waters  had  passed  away.  The  era  of  the  Re- 
formation could  not  be  an  era  of  ]Vrelanchthonian  mildness. 
To  ask  this,  is  to  ask  that  war  shall  be  peace.  .  .  .  The 
war  of  the  Fornuila  was  an  internal  defensive  war ;  yet,  like 
all  civil  wars,  it  left  behind  it  inevitable  wounds  whicli  did 
not  at  once  heal  up.  The  struggle  in  churches  or  states, 
which  ends  in  a  triumph  over  the  schism  of  their  own 
children  cannot  for  generations  command  the  universal  sym- 
pathy with  which  the  overthrow  of  a  common  foe  is  re- 
garded." 

But,  let  us  add^  the  value  of  the  results  is  none  the  less. 
The  contrast  between  the  conditions  that  led  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  those  that  led  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord are  strikingly  like  the  contrast  between  the  conditions 
that  led  in  our  laud  to  tlie  Revolutionary  War,  and  those 
that  led  a  century  later  to  the  Civil  War.  There  may  be 
those  who  regarded  the  Civil  AVar  as  unnecessary,  and  as  the 
result  of  an  over-rigid  and  fanatical  social  standard,  and  an 
over-zealous  spirit,  but  the  more  we  look  beneath  the  sur- 
face, the  more  we  see  that  it  was  the  inevitable  setting  in  and 
culmination  of  a  reaction  in  a  century  of  freedom,  within 
and  during  which,  after  the  pressure  of  external  necessity 


troversles  were  unavoidable  In  that  age,  and  resulted  in  the  consolidation  and 
completion  of  the  Lutheran   system   of  doctrine." — Creeds  I,  p.   259, 


FROM    1546    TO    15  00.  595 

was  removed,  unsettled  internal  causes  arose,  and  would  not 
be  silenced,  until  a  final  settlement  was  made. 

Do  not  those  who  accept  the  results  at  Augsburg  as  con- 
fessional, but  deny  the  results  brought  about  by  the  Formula 
as  confessional,  bear  some  striking  resemblance  to  Americans 
who  would  accept  the  results  of  our  war  against  those  with- 
out, and  who  exult  in  our  original  constitution  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century ;  but  who  deny  any  necessity  or  validity 
in  results  brought  about  by  the  culmination  of  the  internal 
process  of  construction,  and  by  the  contlict  from  which  they 
issued  a  little  more  than  a  half  century  later.  In  both  cases, 
the  first  result  seems  more  epochal  and  decisive,  because  the 
foe  is  an  external  one,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  his  victories. 
But  in  both  cases,  no  matter  how  or  by  what  process  it  may 
have  been  reached,  some  settlement  of  the  problems,  some 
inner  reconstruction,  which  would  at  once  maintain  the 
older  principle  in  all  its  strength,  but  at  the  same  time  apply 
it  to  the  new  conditions,  was  unavoidable. 

The  Leipzig  Interim  was  of  date  of  Dec.  22d,  1548,  about 
two  years  after  Luther's  death.  So  thoroughly  was  Melauch- 
thon  under  a  cloud  from  his  position  taken  as  to  this  Interim, 
that  the  sound  doctrine  which  he  enunciated  in  the  Saxon 
Confession,  in  1551,  and  which  was  unanimously  adopted  by 
the  Wittenberg  theologians,  did  not  remove  the  suspicion 
with  which  he  was  regarded. 

THE   CONTEOVEKSIES   ARISING    OUT    OF    THE   LEIPSIG   INTERIM. 

The  seeds  of  the  subsequent  controversies,  often  alluded 
to  in  connection  with  the  depreciation  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, are  all  to  be  found  in  the  Leipzig  Interim  (given  in  full 
in  our  English  Book  of  Concord),  which  ]\Ielanchthon  and 
the  Wittenberg  theologians  announced  themselves  as  pre- 
pared to  accept  after  Luther's  death.  Justification  by  faith 
is  there  so  changed  as  to  mean,  "  that  man  is  renewed  by  the 


'   II,  p.  253-260.      Tr.  from  C.   R.   VII,   259  sqq.  by  Jacobs. 


596        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Holj  Spirit,  and  can  fulfil  righteousness  with  his  works,  and 
that  God  will,  for  Ilis  Son's  sake,  accept  in  believers  this 
weak  beginning  of  obedience  in  this  miserable  frail  nature."  * 

In  the  Leipzig  Interim  it  is  also  asserted  that  "  God  does 
not  deal  with  a  man  as  a  log,  but  draws  him  in  such  way  tliat 
his  own  will  also  co-operates."  ' 

Here  we  notice  that  the  ground  is  Melanchthou's  own 
ground,  that  the  mistake  is  Melanchthou's,  and  that  the 
doctrine  of  Lutlier  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter  except 
that  Luther's  is  the  true  principle.  In  addition  to  this  yield- 
ing on  justification,  the  proposed  re-introduction  of  the 
Romish  ceremonies  and  restoration  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
bishops  led  to  bitter  conflict,  in  which  many  of  Melanchthou's 
best  friends  deserted  liim. 

The  great  question  in  this  controversy  was  whether  it  is 
ethically  proper  to  yield  any  such  unessential  matter  as  cere- 
monies and  government,  provided  that  the  pure  doctrine  be 
maintained.  Melanclithon  and  his  fellow-Wittenbergers  de- 
clared it  was.  Flacius  '"  u])held  the  principle,  "  Nothing  is 
indifferent  in  casu  confessionis  et  scandali." 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  restoration  of  Roman  cere- 
monies was  a  part  of  the  Leipzig  Interim,  It  was  the  most 
visible  and  striking  part  to  the  Protestant  Churches.  It  is 
no  wonder  then  that  the  Adiaphoristic  controversy  sprang  up 
immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Interim.  Some  months 
later  the  Osiandrian  controversy  arose,  and  several  years 
later  (1551)  still  auotlier  controversy,  the  Majoristic,  de- 
veloped, while  the  Eucharistic  controversy  (1551)  followed 
hard  upon  its  heels. 

The  personalities  of  those  engaging  in  these  controversies 
deserve  a  moment's  attention.  Of  the  older  friends  of  Luther 
there  were  two  still  living,  viz.,  Justus  Jonas  and  Nicholas 
Amsdorf.      The  latter  was  the  head  of  the  rigid  Lutheran 


"  Bieck  372.    Das  dreifache  Interim,  Leipsic,   1721. 

'lb.,  362  ff. 

"•  Praeger    Flac,    I,    142    sqq. 


FROM   15Jf6    TO    15  60.  597 

party  which  included  a  younger  and  more  disputatious  gen- 
eration, viz.,  riacius,  Wigand,  Gallus,  Judex,  Morlin, 
Heshus,  Timann  and  Westphal.  These  men  were  right  in 
being  unwilling  to  turn  either  toward  Rome,  on  the  one  side, 
or  toward  Calvinism,  on  the  other  side,  and  in  attempting 
to  neutralize  the  weaknesses  of  Melanchthon  in  these  opposite 
directions ;  hut  they  were  wrong  in  the  violent  and  partizan 
manner  in  which  they  maintained  their  j)ositions.  The  other 
party,  the  extreme  followers  of  Melanchthon,  was  composed 
of  Camerarius,  Bugenhagen,  Eber,  Crell,  Major,  Cruciger. 
Strigel,  Pfeffinger,  and  Melanchthon's  son-in-law,  Peucer. 
This  party  was  termed  the  Philippists,  and  included  all 
those  who  embraced  the  synergism  of  Melanchthon,  while 
among  them  there  was  a  smaller  party  who  secretly  held  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  were  called 
Crypto-Calvinists. 

The  Philippist  party  was  entrenched  in  the  old  centre  at 
Wittenberg  and  in  the  newer  vicinity  of  Leipzig,  while  the 
ultra-Lutheran  party,  often  called  Gnesio  (that  is,  genuine) 
Lutherans,  had  their  seat  at  Jena. 

In  the  midst  between  these  two  parties,  stood  those  milder 
men,  of  more  judicial  frame,  many  of  them  pupils  of 
Melanchthon,  imbibing  the  sweetness  of  his  spirit,  and  the 
excellence  of  his  metliod,  but  avoiding  his  error  and  clinging 
to  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  Some  of  these  men,  namely, 
Andrea?,  Chemnitz,  Selneckcr  and  Chytraeus,  later  on,  be- 
came the  framers  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  brought 
peace  to  the  Church.  Even  Schaff  gives  them  the  central 
position  in  Lutheranism,  saying  that  they  stood  mediating  be- 
tween ultra-Luthcranism  and  Melanchthonianism." 

The  extreme  Lutherans  held  fast  to  the  principle  of  stabil- 
ity, and  the  extreme  Melanchthonians  clung  to  the  principle 
of  change.  The  extreme  Lutherans  held  to  a  sharp  and  posi- 
tive outline,  the  extreme  Melanchthonians  believed  rather  in 


"  Creeds  I,  p.  267.      Yet  .some  writers  .still  insist  on  identifying  the  Formula 
with  the  extreme  of  Flacianism  ! 


598         THE   LUTHERAN    C  0  N  FE  l:i  SIO  N  S. 

breadth,  mildness,  compromise  and  /union.  The  extreme 
Lutherans  held  to  the  articles  of  faith  as  complete,  established 
and  unchangeable.  The  extreme  Melanchthonians  believed 
them  to  be  elastic  and  adaptable. 

Melanchthon  had  declared  good  works  to  be  necessary, 
while  Luther  had  paradoxically  said  that  ''good  works  are  a 
hindrance"  to  justification.  George  Major  and  others  de- 
veloped the  view  of  j\Ielanchthon  to  the  limit,  and  raised  this 
controversy — from  the  Melanchthon  side — and  in  line  with 
the  treatment  of  justification  in  the  Leipzig  Interim,  and  de- 
clared that  good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation.  Major 
was  vigorously  combatted  by  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf  and  by 
Flacius.  Melanchthon  attempted  to  settle  the  matter  by 
dropping  the  two  words,  "  to  salvation ;  "  but  this  led  the 
Flaeian  party  to  the  extreme  statement  that  "  renewal  is  an 
entirely  separate  thing  from  justification."  "  Both  Melanch- 
thon and  the  Gnesio-Lutherans  opposed  the  Flaeian  position. 

Immediaiely  out  of  the  Majoristic  controversy  arose  the 
Antinomistic  controversy,  in  which  some  of  the  teachings  of 
Agricola,  who  had  been  firmly  opposed  by  Luther  years  be- 
fore, continued  to  reappear. 

Meantime,  that  is  between  the  death  of  Luther  and  1553, 
Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  which  Melanchthon 
and  his  followers  had  become  friendly,  was  being  silently 
propagated  in  Germany.  Melanchthon  possessed  a  kindly 
feeling  for  Calvin.  Calvin,  not  a  contemporary  of  Luther, 
was  a  member  of  the  second  generation  of  Reformers,  who 
fell  heir  to  the  mediating  theology  of  Bucer,  and  was  suc- 
cessful in  planting  a  Calvinistic  church  upon  German  soil, 
and  in  winning  the  allegiance  of  many  Melanchthonians  and 
Lutherans. 

Ever  since  his  change  of  the  tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  since  the  "Wittenberg  Concord,  Melanchthon 


'•'Seeberg  finds  in  this  Flaeian  extreme  position  simply  a  logical  in- 
ference from  the  Melanchthonian  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  justification, 
to  which  Melanchthon  himself  had  a  corrective  in  his  theory  of  the  ethical 
necessity  of  good  works,  but  which  corrective  these  extreme  Flacians  lacked." 


FROM    loJf6    TO    1560.  599 

had  been  teaching  a  differeni  doctrine  from  Luther  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  somewhat  approximating  Calvin's,  which  re- 
jected the  omnipresence  of  the  human  nature,  and  the  covi- 
municatio  idioniatum.  For  years  the  effect  of  the  difference 
was  not  noticed ;  but  the  teacliing  went  on,  and  the  approach 
of  Lutheranism,  as  found  in  ]\Ielanchthon's  pupils,  toward 
Calvinism  became  nearer  and  nearer. 

At  last,  in  1552,  Joachim  Westphal,  pastor  in  Hamburg, 
pointed  out  that  the  Calvinist  teaching  on  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  not  that  held  bv  Luther.  Westphal's  declaration  awak- 
ened great  excitement  in  Bremen,  in  Heidelberg,  and  es- 
pecially in  Wiirttemburg.  In  1559,  under  the  leadership  of 
Brentz,  the  Church  of  Wiirttemburg  pronounced  in  favor  of 
the  Lutheran  doctrine.  ]\Ielanchthon  carefully  avoided  com- 
mitting himself  on  this  subject.  To  Hardenburg  in  Bremen, 
he  wrote, — "I  beg  of  you  dissimulate"  ("Multa  dis- 
simules  "  ")  ;  and  to  Bi-entz, — "  To  answer  is  not  difficult," 
but  dangerous."  "  This  was  in  1559,  the  year  before  ]Me- 
lanchthon's  death. 

Two  years  before  this  E'.icharistic  controversy  had  broken 
out  at  Hamburg,  Andrew  Osiander  put  forth  his  new  dispu- 
tation (1550-1552)  concerning  justification.  Osiander  was 
opposed  by  both  Pliilippists  and  Lutherans.  Yet  it  is  held 
by  some  that  he  performed  a  service  to  the  church  "  by  ad- 


"  C.   R.,   VIII,    736  ;    Cf.    IX,    960. 
"76.,  1034  sq. 

"We    quote    Melanchthon    to    Brentz: — 

Rcsiwiisio  Phil.  Mel.  ad  fjuaesiiuiiem  de  controvcrsia  Heidclherriensi  (C. 
R.,  IX,  p.  961)  :  Non  difficile,  scd  periculosuin  est  respondere. 
In  hac  controvcrsia  optimum  essct  retinerc  verha  Pauli:  "  Panis,  quem 
frail fiimus."  Et  copiose  de  fructu  Caenac  discendum  est.  ut  invitentur  homines 
ad  amorein  hujus  pi(j7ioi\s  ct  crebrum  usum.  Et  vocabuluni  declaraiiduin  est. 
Non  dicit^  mutari  vaturam  panis,  ut  Papistae  dicunt ;  non  dicit,  vt  Biemenses, 
panem  esse  substantiale  corpus  Christi;  non  dicit,  ut  Heshusius,  panem  esse 
verum  corpus  Christi :  sed  esse,  hoc,  quo  fit  consociatio  cum  corpore  Christi, 
quae  fit  in  wsw,  et  quidem  non  sine  cogitatione.  ut  cum  mures  paneyn  rodunt. 
.  .  .  Adest  Filitts  Dei  in  ministerio  Evangelii  et  ibi  certo  est  efficax  in 
credentibus,  ac  adest  non  propter  panem,  sed  propter  hominem,  sicut  inquit : 
"  Manet e  in  vie,  et  ego  in  vobis." 

According  to  Heppe,  Melanchthon  taught  the  sacramental  communication  to 
be  that  of  the  living  body  of  the  divine-human  Person,  resulting  in  a  personal 
communion,  an  indwelling  of  the  God-man  in  the  believer. — Heppe,  Dogmatik 
des  deutschen  Protcstantismus,  III,  p.  150. 


600        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

vocating  ideas  embraced  in  original  Lutlieranism  as  against 
Melanchthonianism."  This  is  the  view  of  Seeberg,  who 
praises  the  broad,  systematic  instinct  that  permeates  the 
discussions  of  Osiander.'" 

No  sooner  had  the  controversy  on  Adiaphora  ended  than 
the  controversy  on  Synergism  began, — a  heresy  which  is  al- 
ways with  the  Church,  and  not  least  in  the  Protestantism  of 
to-day.  In  1555  Pfcffinger  of  Lcij^zig,  a  follower  of  Melanch- 
thon's  teachings,  put  forth  the  doctrine  that  man  is  not 
"  purely  passive  "  in  his  conversion,  as  a  statue,  but  that  he 
must  do  his  part.  Tlius  arose  a  controversy  full  of  sensations, 
in  which  Flacius  fell  into  heresy,  and  Strigel,  in  the  very 
heart  of  the  strictest  Lutlieranism,  suddenly  became  a  Syner- 
gistic convert. 

Even  Schaff  admits,  in  this  connection,  that  ]\lelanchthon 
was  a  Synergist,  and  says,  "  The  defect  of  the  Synergistic 
theory  is  tlie  idea  of  a  partnership  between  God  and  man,  and 
a  corresponding  division  of  work  and  merit.  S;\Tiergism  is 
less  objectionable  than  semi-Pelagianism,  for  it  reduces  co- 
operation before  conversion  to  a  minimum,  but  even  that 
minimum  is  incompatible  with  the  absolute  dependence  of 
man  on  God.  It  touched  the  central  doctrine  of  Evangelical 
Lutheranisni,  justificaiion  hy  faith,  whether  it  is  a  mere 
declaratory,  forensic  act  of  acquittal  from  sin  and  guilt,  or 
an  actual  infusion  of  righteousness."  "  Schaff  terms  "  the 
later  Melanchthonian  Synergism,"  "  a  refined  evangelical 
modification  of  semi-Pelagianism."  This  was  a  teaching 
which  threatened  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, that  of  salvation  by  grace  through  faith  alone.     In  the 


^'  Says  Seeberg.  "  He  had  a  general  theory  of  Christianity  surh  as  no  other 
among  the  theologians  suoceeding  Luther  possessed,  until  Calvin  appeared. 
Among  the  men  of  second  rank  of  the  Reformation  period  he  was  perhaps 
the  greatest.  Viewed  historically,  his  attempt  constitutes  the  contemporaneous 
counterpoise  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  taught  by  the  later  Melanchthon. 
Both  men  gave  one-sided  interpretations  of  ideas  of  Luther's.  .  .  .  But  it 
must  after  all  be  counted  a  blessing  that  the  Melanchthonian  and  not  the 
Osiandrian  scheme  met  the  approval  of  the  Church." — Hist,  of  Doctrines 
II,  pp.   372,   373. 

"Schaff,  Creeds  I,  271. 


FROM    1546    TO    1560.  GOl 

Adiaphoristic  controversy,  and  here  also,  the  trouble  was  a 
fruit  of  the  teaching-  of  Melanchthon. 

Several  qualities  and  motives  in  Melanchthon's  nature,  ii> 
cluding  his  humanist  outlook  on  free  will,  and  his  tendency 
to  emphasize  the  necessity  of  good  works,  contributed  to  in- 
spire him  with  erroneous  views,  when  the  evangelical  doctrine 
began  to  be  wrought  out  more  expansively ;  and  led  him  to 
find  the  cause  for  the  actual  variation  in  the  working  of 
God's  grace,  in  man,  its  object. 

This  subtle  Synergistic  spirit  attacks  the  very  foundation 
of  Lutherauism,  flows  out  into  almost  every  doctrine,  and 
weakens  the  church  at  every  point.  And  it  was  particularly 
this  weakness,  which  the  great  multitude  of  Melanchthon's 
scholars,  who  become  the  leaders  of  the  generation  of  which 
we  are  speaking,  absorbed ;  and  which  rendered  it  difficult  to 
return,  finally,  and  after  years  of  struggle,  to  the  solid  ground, 
once  more  recovered  in  the  Formula  of  Concord." 

A  number  of  the  Lutheran  leaders,  including  Chemnitz 
and  Selnecker,  who  gave  us  the  Formula  of  Concord,  were 
infected  originally  with  the  Synergistic  teachings  of  Melanch- 
thon, and  had  by  a  living  experience  in  this  error,  to  work 
their  way  through  to  more  solid  ground.  The  Synergistic 
teaching,  added  to  the  indeterminateness  reopened  by  the 
changes  of  Melanchthon  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  reduced  the 
inner  strength  of  the  work  wrought  by  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession to  a  minimum,  and  invited  men  of  arbitrary,  pas- 
sionate and  polemical  nature  to  enter  into  minor  controversy 
of  various  kinds,  and  thus  increase  the  divisions  and  con- 
fusion within  the  conservative  evangelical  churches. 

THE  SCHOLASTIC  METHOD  OP  MELANCHTHON. 

All  the  efforts  of  poor  JMelanchthon  to  attach  the  Lutheran 


'*  Schaff  fully  admits  this :  *'  The  'Form  of  Concord'  settled  the  controversy 
by  separating  good  works  both  from  justification  and  salvation,  yet  declaring 
them  necessary  as  effects  of  justifying  faith." — Creeds  I,   p.   277. 


602         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIOXS. 

Church,  whether  to  Home  or  to  Calvinism,  proved  unsuc- 
cessful. He  was  misunderstood  and  misrepresented.  Amid 
the  attacks  of  partisan  enemies,  who  regarded  him  as  having 
betrayed  the  Lutheran  cause,  he  died,  in  1500,  broken- 
hearted. 

He  was  the  great  theologian  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation. 
His  gifts  reduced  the  purified  doctrine  to  a  connected  system, 
and  organized  the  outward  form  of  the  Church.  His  mind 
was  so  constituted  that  he  was  accustomed  to  generalize  his 
convictions  in  such  way  as  to  bring  them  into  a  wider  har-^ 
mony  with  those  outside  him,  without  loss  of  essence  per- 
ceptible to  himself.  He  declared  always  that  he  taught 
Luther's  doctrine  and,  to  the  end,  that  his  faith  was  un- 
changed. 

His  broad  humanism,  fostered  by  classical  tastes  and 
natural  amiability  and  timidity,  rendered  him  unsafe  as  a 
leader,  although  strong  under  a  firmer  will.  It  is  to  this 
that  Calvin  referred  when  he  heard  of  ]\lelanchthon's  death: 
"  O,  Philip  Melanchthon !  for  it  is  upon  thee  whom  I  call, 
upon  thee,  who  now  livest  with  Christ  in  God,  and  art  waiting 
for  us,  until  we  shall  attain  that  blessed  rest.  A  hundred 
times,  worn  out  with  fatigue  and  overwhelmed  with  care, 
thou  hast  laid  thy  head  upon  my  breast  and  said.  Would 
God  I  might  die  here.  And  a  thousand  times  since  then  I 
have  earnestly  desired  that  it  had  been  granted  us  to  be 
together.  Certainly  thou  wouldst  have  been  more  valiant  to 
face  danger,  and  stronger  to  despise  hatred,  and  bolder  to 
disregard  false  accusations." 

At  this  point  we  must  say  a  word  concerning  one  of  the 
strangest  of  paradoxes,  namely,  that  Melanchthon's  exalta- 
tion, as  a  teacher,  of  the  doctrina  Lutlieri,  before  Luther's 
death,  brought  on  the  clash  with  the  ^lelanchthonian  doc- 
trine in  the  controversies  after  Luther's  death.  Thus  Me- 
lanchthon  was  the  fatlier  of  both  parties  in  the  contro- 
versies. The  earlier,  or  strictly  Lutheran  scholars,  had  been 
started  out  on  the  correct  conception  that  the  two  marks  of 


FROM    1546    TO    1560.  G03 

the  Church  are  the  pure  doctrine  and  the  right  administra- 
tion, of  the  sacraments. 

But  to  this  Melanchthon  added  a  scholastic  conception  of 
the  pure  doctrine.  He  taught  his  older  scholars  that  the 
pure  doctrine  is  the  teacliing  of  the  three  old  church  symbols, 
the  Augustana,  and  the  doctrine  of  Luther  as  taught  at  Wit- 
tenberg. "  Lutherus  veram  et  necessariam  doctrinam  pate- 
fecit."  In  other  words,  as  has  been  said,  Melanchthon  dog- 
matized the  authority  of  Luther,  so  that  the  young  theolo- 
gians went  forth  from  Wittenberg  with  the  scholastic  idea 
that  the  Gospel  is  the  sum  of  the  correctly  framed  articles 
of  faith,  and  tliat  the  doctrine  of  Luther  is  the  external  au- 
thority, determinative  of  the  Faith.  How  could  anything 
else  be  possible  under  such  teaching  than  the  rise,  after  Mel- 
anchthon wavered  in  doctrine,  of  the  Gnesio-Lutheran  school  ? 

When  Melanchthon  came  finally  to  an  openly  indepen- 
dent development,  empliasizing  the  facultas  applicandi  se 
ad  gratiam  in  the  sinner,  the  necessity  of  good  works  in  the 
state  of  grace,  and  contending  against  the  scholastic  concep- 
tion of  the  "  ubiquity "  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
whicli  lie  had  himself  previously  wrought  into  doctrine;  and 
allowed  the  changes  in  the  \'ariata  to  become  manifest,  and 
in  his  dealing  in  the  Interim,  the  avoidance  of  theological 
conflict  was  evidently  impossible,  especially  as  ^Melanch- 
thon's  conception  of  the  Church  required  a  decision  of  such 
doctrinal  differences. 

Melanchthon  himself  had  canonized  the  doctrine  of  Lu- 
ther, and  was  now  departing  from  it.  Was  it  any  wonder 
that  the  Gnesio-Lutherans  turned  back  to  Luther  as  against 
the  more  newly  manifest  Melanchthon  ?  And  as  they  were 
a  party,  was  it  any  wonder  that  they  combined  the  coarsest 
and  sternest  part  of  Luther's  personal  qualities  with  the 
most  abstract  and  scholastic  method  of  Melanchthon's 
teaching  ? 

"  It  is  unreasonable  to  condemn  the  lack  of  piety  and  the 
controversial  spirit  of  these  circles.      Through  the  Melancli- 


604        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

thoniau  conception  of  the  Church,  suspicion  appeared  to  be- 
come the  most  holy  duty.  They  served  God  and  the  Church 
in  all  earnestness  as  they  understood  it." 

"  Neither  party  was  willing  to  give  up  or  to  diminish  the 
authority  of  Luther.  The  situation  was  really  this,""  that 
the  majority  of  Churches  within  the  Saxon  Reformation  at 
first  did  really  not  know  that  there  was  a  Melanchthonianism 
being  set  up  alongside  of  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  and  that 
later  they  did  not  wish  to  know  it."  '"  When  Flacius  awoke 
them,  they  were  in  a  great  strait  as  to  how  to  combine  piety 
toward  the  great  Praeceptor  with  piety  toward  the  Great 
Confession. 

There  was  no  contemporary  leader  on  whom  they  could 
rely,  and  they  floundered  blindly  in  search  of  a  secure  au- 
thority. "  Nothing  ^  throws  clearer  light  upon  the  com- 
plicated situation,  which  it  is  important  to  understand  and 
to  appreciate,  in  order  to  perceive  the  necessity  and  the 
difficulty  of  establishing  a  final  and  decisive  Confession,  as 
well  as  a  universally  acknowledged  corpus  doctrinse,  than  the 
transactions  of  the  JSTaumburg  Fiirstentag  of  1561,  where, 
in  view  of  the  charge  made  by  the  Roman  Catholics  that  the 
Lutherans  had  departed  from  the  original  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, they  confessed  their  adherence  to  the  edition  of  1531 
with  the  express  remark,  that  they  did  not  at  all  mean,  in 
this  new  subscription  to  depart  from  the  Confession  of  1511, 
which  made  certain  articles  more  clear,  and  brought  the 
divine  truth  to  light,  and  therefore  they  could  as  little  de- 
})art  from  this  as  from  the  first  Confession." ""  This  im- 
jiossible  solution  is  the  only  possible  solution  outside  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

After  the  death  of  Melanchthon  in  15  GO,  came  the  natural 


"  Calinich  on  The  Naumburp  Fiirsten  Tag. 

2i>  "  Formula  of  Concord,"  Hauck  EncycL 

2'  Ih. 

^'This  nafve  rontrailiotlon  has  Inherpd,  oftPn  with  the  same  unconsciousness, 
In  Melanchthonian  Lutherani^m  ever  since,  and  is  giving  the  Church  her 
troubles  to-day. 


FROM   15^6   TO    1560.  605 

tendency  to  exalt  his  writings  {Corpus  Philippicum^  )  to 
symbolical  authority.  The  attempt,  made  already  in  15  GO, 
to  force  this  Corpus  upon  the  churches  in  the  electorate  of 
Saxony  aroused  the  deepest  feeling/* 

Here  we  have  the  earliest  set  of  Symbolical  Books,  pro- 
posed as  a  norm,  which,  though  more  bulky  than  the  Book 
of  Concord,  contained  not  one  of  Lutlier's  writings,  but 
was  largely  composed  of  private  writings  on  which  no  official 
action  of  the  (liurch  had  been  taken. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  tliat  this  first  effort  to  use  symbolical 
Books  in  the  Church,  in  order  to  cover  the  controversies  since 
the  death  of  Luther,  arose  on  the  jMelanchthonian  and  Union- 
istic  side,  and  not  on  the  strictly  Lutheran  side.  These 
bulky  Confessions  first  ap])eared  among  the  Unionists ;  and 
to  reduce  them,  and  bring  the  teaching  of  the  Church  within 
a  really  confessional  compass,  was  one  of  the  great  objects 
of  the  Book  of  Concord. 

At  least  twenty  different  Lutheran  Confessions  of  faith, 
most  of  them  bulky,  appeared  between  the  death  of  Luther 
and  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The  best  known 
of  these  were  the  Philippicum  (1560),  just  mentioned,  the 
Brunswick  (15G3),  the  Pomeranicum  (1565),  the  Pruten- 
icum  (1567),  the  Thuringicum  (1570),  and  the  Branden- 
burgicum.  The  Corpus  Julium  (1576)  stood  in  a  class  bj 
itself. 

In  1566,  the  Reformed  Theologians  (Heidelberg)  assailed 
the  C ommunicatlo  Idiomatuin  and  the  ubiquity  in  connection 
with  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  Brentz  expecially,  defended  the 
doctrine.     In   Saxony  the   Crypto-Calvinists '"   rejected   the 


*'  The  Corpxis  Philippicum  was  a  private  undertaking  of  the  book  dealer 
Vogelein  in  Leipzig,  who  in  1560  edited  a  collection  of  Melanchthon's  doctrinal 
writings.  This  was  not  only  introduced  into  electoral  Saxony,  but  into  Hesse 
and  Pomerania,  and  called  forth  strictly  Lutheran  Corpora  Doctrinae  in  op- 
position."— Seeberg,  II.,   p.   380. 

^*  Einleitung  to  Koethe's  Concordia,  LXXXVIII  sqq.  ;  Proleg.  to  Hutter's 
Explicatio  Libri  Chr.  Concordiae,  Francke's  Libri  Synibolici,  Prol.  III.  v ; 
Kollner,  i  524. 

25  Eber,  Major  and  Crell. 

43 


606        THE  LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

doctrine  in  1571,  and  were  replied  to  by  Chemnitz.'*  Thus 
the  controversies  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  were  added  to  the  previous  array  of  theological 
differences. 

During  all  this  time  the  combination  of  State  and  Church 
in  one  faith,  and  the  fixation  of  the  religion  of  the  st-ate 
by  means  of  dogmatic  formulas,  together  with  the  customary 
academic  form  of  disputations,  aided  in  creating  the  most 
bitter  contention.  Seeberg  declares  that  "  the  passion  dis- 
played and  the  worship  of  formulas  reminded  of  the  worst 
periods  of  the  dogmatic  struggles  upon  Byzantine  terri- 
tory." ''  This  was  true  no  less  of  the  ]\relanehthonians  than 
of  the  stricter  Lutherans. 

The  attempt  of  the  princes  to  restore  peace  in  the  Frank- 
fort Recess  in  1558,  with  the  Weimar  confutation  in  1559, 
and  the  condemnation  of  the  latter  by  the  Philippists,  the 
ISTaumburg  Diet  with  its  unsuccessful  results  in  1561,  the 
conflict  in' regard  to  the  "Invariata"  and  the  ''Variata"  edi- 
tions of  the  Augsburg  Confession  the  same  year,  and  now 
later,  the  controversies  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, broke  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  confession  into  many 
fragmentary  parties. 


THE    PART    OF    POLITICS. 

The  political  situation  also  contributed  its  full  share 
toward  the  disintegration  of  Lutheranism.  The  Protestant 
victory  over  the  Emperor  and  the  Passau  agreement  of  1552, 
led  to  tlie  Religious  Peace  of  Augsburg  in  1555,  in  which 
all  adlierents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Lutherans  and  Cal- 
vinists/'  were   assured   religions   freedom;   bnt   the   further 


'■"  In  his  De  duabiis  nntiiri!)  in   Christo. 

*'  In  speaking  of  the  need  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Hist,  of  Doctrinea 
II,   378. 

*»"  Calvin  wrote  to  Rev.  Mart.  Sfhalling.  at  Ratisbon,  1557:  '  X<'C  vero 
Augustanam  Confcssioncm  repudio,  cui  pridem  rolnis  ac  lihcns  subscripsi, 
sicut   earn   auctor  ipse   interpretatus    est'    (Epp.,    p.    437).      Similarly    in    his 


FROM    IBJfG    TO    1560.  607 

spread  of  Lutheranism  was  checked  by  the  reservatum  eccle- 
siasticum.  As  only  one-tenth  of  Germany  was  Roman  and 
seven-tenths  Lutheran,  the  results  gained  by  this  Peace  were 
meagre.  But  this  signing  away  of  a  large  part  of  Germany  to 
Roman  Catholicism,  and  the  closing  of  the  possibility  to 
Protestantism  of  extending  itself  to  a  wider  territory,  was 
not,  it  is  agreed,  the  saddest  part  of  this  Religious  Peace. 
This  was  the  tragedy,  namely,  that  the  Reformation  scarcely 
begun  came  to  a  halt,  and  that  Lutheran  Protestantism  pro- 
ceeded no  further  in  its  work.  Since  outer  expansion  was  no 
longer  possible,  Lutherans  seemed  to  think  that  the  internal 
work  also  was  finished,  and  were  satisfied  to  make  permanent 
the  little  that  had  been  thus  far  gained.  The  controversies 
anjse,  and  also  tlie  slate-churches  (Beamptcnkireheu),  that 
busied  themselves  chiefly  in  these  controversies.'^ 

Already  in  1556,  things  had  come  to  such  a  pass,  that  the 
old  Evangelical  doctrine  was  taught  openly  only  in  a  few 
places,  particularly  in  north  Germany.  The  Reformed  Pala- 
tinate thanked  God  in  her  churches,  that  Saxony,  the  mother 
of  the  Reformation,  had  now  become  Reformed ;  the  Jesuits 
rejoiced  that  the  Lutherans  were  no  longer  real  Lutherans, 
and  the  noble  and  earnest  leaders  of  all  sides,  including 
Helanchthon,  fell  into  trembling  and  despair.  Thus  was  the 
edge  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  bent  and  broken ;  and 
none  can  say  what  the  result  would  have  been,  had  the  tide, 
in  the  Providence  of  God,  not  once  again  turned  back  toward 
the  true  faith. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  tried  to  follow  the  thread  of  historv 


Ultima  Admonitio  ad  Joach.  Westphahim,  Genev.,  1557.  It  is  not  quite  cer- 
tain whether  it  was  the  Altered  or  the  Unaltered  Confession  which  Calvin 
subs-c-ribed  at  Ratisbon,  but  probably  it  was  the  former,  as  he  says  that  It 
contained  nothing  contrary  to  his  doctrine,  and  as  he  appealed  without  fear 
to  Melanchthon  himself  as  the  best  interpreter.  The  Altered  edition  had 
appeared  a  year  before,  and  had  been  actually  used  at  the  previous  Conference 
at  Worms,  though  Eck  protested  against  it.  See  Kollner  p.  241  ;  Zockler,  pp. 
40,  41;  Ebrard,  Dorjtna  vom  heil.  Abendmahl,  IT,  p.  450;  Stahelin,  Joh. 
Calviyi,  I,  p.  236  ;  G.  v.  Polentz,  Geschichte  dt'S  franzosischen  Calvinismus, 
I.  p.  577  ;   II,  p.   62." — Schaff,  II,   p.   235. 

"  "  Formula  of  Concord,"  llauck  Encycl. 


608        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

as  it  frayed  out  into  controversies,  and  as  these  arose  out  of 
each  other,  from  Luther's  death  to  the  death  of  Melanchthon, 
and  into  the  following  decade,  where  we  found  conflict  and 
disintegration.  Before  scanning  the  horizon  for  hope  of 
relief,  it  will  he  useful  to  take  a  more  thorough  look  back- 
ward at  the  great  man  whose  word  and  deed,  whose  person- 
ality and  principle  are  interwoven  as  the  leading  figure  into 
every  page  of  the  history  through  which  we  have  passed. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

MELANCHTHON   AND   THE    MELAXCHTHOXIAN 
PRIXCIPLE. 

Luther  the  Confessor,  not  the  ITero — Melanchthon's  Gifts  and  Gracious  Nature — 
Luther's  Loyalty  to  Melanchthon — Melanchthon  as  a  Teacher  and  Writer — 
His  Philosophy  and  Theology — His  Practical  Tendency — The  Lumen  Naturale 
— His  Two  Contradictory  Principles — The  "Loci  Communes" — Its  Effect  on 
Lutheran  Seventeenth-Century  Theology — His  Clear  Understanding  of  the  Fun- 
damental Principles  of  the  Reformation — Melanchthon's  Lack  of  Faith  in  Crisis 
— His  Mild  Rationalism— Makes  Confession  a  Problem  of  Adjustment — Willing- 
ness to  Enter  Compromise — Timidity — Desire  for  Union — Diplomacy — Anxiety. 

THE  Confessional  principle  of  the  Chnrcli  is  the  prin- 
ciple  of  Scripture.  In  essence  it  is  divine.  The  men 
who  discovered  or  elaborated  it,  are  not  its  authors;  and 
their  words  and  opinions,  whether  in  consonance  or  in  dis- 
sonance with  it;  do  not  affect  it. 

Doubtless  it  will  be  conceded  that  of  these  men,  in  modern 
days,  Luther  was  chief.  Drinking  in  the  word  of  forgive- 
ness and  salvation,  he  gave  forth  his  confession  to  an 
eager  world,  in  great  columns  of  testimony,  as  a  gushing 
geyser  rises  into  evidence  from  the  power  and  pressure  of 
the  inner  movement  that  sends  it  forth. 

It  would  be  a  pleasure  to  set  forth  Luther  more  fully,  in 
the  childlike  simplicity  and  heroic  trust  of  his  rugged  faith, 
as  bearing  upon  the  Confessional  principle.  But  since  the 
personal  traits  of  the  Reformation  Elijah  are  so  deeply 
graven  on  every  Lutheran  mind,  and  to  avoid  the  impres- 

609 


610        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

sion  of  a  purpose  on  our  part  to  exalt  Luther  *  and  depreciate 
Melanchthon,  Luther's  faithful  and  angelic  second  self,  we 
shall  confine  our  praises,  as  also,  in  the  nature  of  our  sub- 
ject, we  are  compelled  to  concentrate  our  analysis  upon  the 
exquisite  personality  of  the  faithful  Elisha,  Luther's  own 
"  Magister  Philippus." 

lie  was  the  crystal  stream  that  dissolved  the  rough,  mighty, 
ferruginous,  boulder-like  rocks  of  the  Reformation,  and 
held  their  salutary  elements  in  its  silvery  body,  and  bore, 
in  sweet  and  gentle  flow,  the  new  invigorating  waters,  rich 
and  ruddy,  charged  with  restorative  tides  of  healthier  life, 
to  the  eager,  thirsty  souls  of  the  youth  in  every  niche  and 
corner  of  the  great  German  Empire. 

Melanchthon  came  to  Wittenberg  with  a  classic  ancestry 
in  his  veins.  A  humanist  by  nature  and  education,  and  a 
Christian  by  grace — if  we  were  synergistic,  we  should  be 


^  This  volume  has  no  interest  in  the  hero-worship  of  Carlyle,  often  at- 
tributed— unjustly,  we  believe — to  Lutherans  of  solid  faith  and  earnest  con- 
viction. Thus  Schaff,  with  all  his  love  for  the  Luthcra.n  Church  and  desire 
that  they  come  into  federative  union,  or,  at  losst,  brotherly  fellowship,  with 
the  Reformed,  adds  these  words  to  his  estimate  of  the  "mighty  genius  of 
Luther  "  :  "  The  towering  greatness  of  Luther  is  to  the  Lutherans  a  constant 
temptation  to  hero-worship,  a-'?  Knpoleon's  brilliavt  77iilitary  genius  is  a  7nis- 
fnrtunc  and  temptation  to  France.  .  .  .  There  are  not  a  few  Lutherans  who 
have  more  liking  for  Luther's  faults  than  for  his  virtues,  and  admire  his 
conduct  at  Marburg  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  his  conduct  at  Worms." 

And  again  Schaff  says  elsewhere :  "  The  overestimate  of  Luther  is  well 
explained   in   the   lines, — 

*  Gottes  Wort  und  Luthers  Lehr 
Vergehet   nun   und   nimmermehr.'  " 

Schaff's  estimate  is  apparently  a  miscomprehension  of  the  intent  of  these 
classic  lines.  In  any  case,  the  Schaffian  school  should  be  willing  to  take  the 
judgment  of  the  mild,  moderate  and  admirable  Melanchthon  on  this  point. 
Melanchthon  said  :  "  Luther  brought  to  light  the  true  and  necessary  doctrine  " 
(C  R.  I,  728),  and  "  We  must  hold  fast  to  the  pure  doctrine,  namely,  the 
Confes'sio  Lutheri  (C.  R.,  XI,  272  sq.  ;  VIII,  49).  On  which  Seeberg  (II,  353) 
remarks  :  "  The  co-ordination  of  '  Gottes  ^yort  und  Luthers  Lehr  '  is  per- 
fectly in  accord  with  Melanchthon's  feeling."  It  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  of  justification   by   faith,   to  which   the  couplet   refers. 

The  present  writer  is  no  admirer  of  the  Napoleonic  in  Church  or  State. 
To  him,  in  this  examen  as  to  the  inner  nature  of  the  Lutheran  faith,  and  its 
genuine  and  complete  confession,  the  personal  traits  and  partisan  espousal  of 
Luther  are  little  or  nothing.  Our  one  concern  here  is  in  and  for  the  principle 
of  the  real  Scriptural  Faith,  and   its  Confession. 

Any  stage  of  the  investigation  in  this  work  will  not  therefore  be  justly  met 
by  attributing  to  it  the  motive  of  a  championship  of  the  cause  of  Luther,  as  in 
contrast  with  that  of  the  more  delicate  and  altogether  lovable  Melanchthon. 
It  may  be  suspected,  that  the  pen  moving  on  these  pages  is  capable,  on  oc- 
casion, of  volcanic  outburst  :  but  this  volume  should  be  its  own  witness  that  the 
pen  is  flowing,   if  not  with  the  sweet  and  clear,  yet  with  the  quiet   point  and 


MELANCIITEONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  Gil 

tempted  to  say  by  temperament  and  grace, — his  culture  had 
rendered  him  uncomfortable  at  Tubingen,  prior  to  his  grand- 
uncle  Reuchlin's  recommendation  of  him  to  Luther." 

The  wonderful  intellect  was  enveloped  in  a  timid  and 
shrinking,  yet  gently  persisting  disposition ;  and  enshrined 
in  a  j^hysical  frame  so  frail  that  it,  even  in  health,  seemed 
likely,  at  any  moment,  to  give  way  under  the  strain  of 
thought  within.  Luther  said  of  Melanchthon,  after  he  had 
reached  Wittenberg :  "  There  is  but  one  thing  I  fear,  namely, 
that  his  delicate  constitution  will  not  be  able  to  endure  the 
manner  of  life  in  this  region.*' 

Peculiarly  tender  and  feminine  in  the  perfection  of  his 
intuitive  insight,  the  clearness  of  his  reasoning,  the  per- 
sistency of  his  inner  determination,  itself  sufficient  to  make 
himself    and   those   around   him   miserable  ^   under    adverse 


measured  soale  of  Melanchthon's  soft  and  tender  quill.  Whatever  Luther-like 
eruptions  may  startle  the  tranquillity  of  anj'  clear  American  night,  from  any 
other  'oiirces,  the  utterances  in  this  work,  if  they  offend,  will  probably  do 
so  because  they  are  sedate. 

^  Reuchlin  had  learned  to  know  Melanchthon  as  a  school-boy  at  Pforzheim, 
and  took  great  delight  in  him.  It  was  impossible  not  to  love  the  lad.  so 
amiable,  so  thoughtful,  and  so  modest.  Even  his  stammering  tongue,  which 
prevented  him  from  talking  freely,  vhs  no  obstacle  to  those  who  knew  him. 

His  quick  perception,  retentive  memory,  marvelous  acuteness,  sagacity  in 
argument,  purity  in  expression,  rare  and  extensive  knowledge,  delicate  and 
elegant  taste,  commended  him  to  every  educated  man.  Erasmus  said  of  him. 
"  He  not  only  excels  in  learni.ng  and  eloquence,  but  by  a  certain  fatality  is  a 
geveral  favorite.  Honest  and  candid  men  are  fond  of  him.  and  even  hi-i 
adrcrsai-ies  cannot  hate  him."  And  nearly  four  centuries  later,  the  English 
translator  of  his  biography,  G.  F.  Krotel  {Life  of  Ph.  McUinchthoii,  by  C. 
F.  Ledderhose,  Phila.,  Lindsay  and  Blakiston,  1855),  says:  "Melanchthon  has 
been  called  the  most  amiable,  the  purest,  and  most  learned  of  the  celebrated 
men  of  the  Sixteenth  Century.  And  he  has  succeeded  in  securing  the  af- 
fections of  posterity,  and  more  than  any  other  one  of  the  valiant  champions 
of  the  Reformation,  is  the  genera!  favorite  of  all  evangelical  Christians,  and 
still  seems  to  stand  as  the  gentle  mediator  between  the  two  great  divisions  of 
the  Protestant  Church  formed  at  that  time,  claimed  and  loved  by  both." 

'  The  weight  of  Melanchthon's  disposition  was  against  discord  and  in  favor 
of  peace.  He  hated  the  rough,  the  violent,  the  crude,  the  immoderate  {im- 
manitas  horrichtm  nimium,  Postil,  \\.  552).  Yet.  as  is  so  often  the  case  with 
very  gentle  people,  there  was  an  irritability,  and  a  susceptibility  to  exaspera- 
tion in  his  own  nature.  He  himself  confesses  this:  scepe  c.v  animo  iiuJignor, 
scis  enim  me  es.se  iracunduin  (celeris  scd  brevis  ircB). — C.  R.,  Ill,  1172.  And 
his  friend  Camerarius  tells  us:  affcctimibns  animi  vehemrntibus ;  graviter 
err/o  commovehatur,  eratque  in  eo  impetus  hie  repentinus,  qui  tamen  sedabatur 
celeriter.  Further,  Ratzebarger  (92)  alludes  to  Melanchthon's  being  stirred 
up  in  his  public  lectures  and  his  private  teachings  because  "  he  wished  to 
have  his  rationem  docendi  "  observed  "  exacte  ad  uui/uem."  "  Melanchthon 
was  gentle  by  nature  only  in  the  sense  that  he  was  not  capable  of  deep  and 
lasting  passion,  and  that  the  rising  waves  of  anger  were  always  brought  to 
calm  again  by  his  good-heartedness  and  his  benevolent  and  loving  disposition," 


613        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

conditions;  peculiar  in  the  charm  of  his  personal,  and  the 
failure  of  his  negotiative,  contacts;  and  peculiar  also  in 
the  almost  unaccountable  inability  to  see  the  necessity  of 
strict  fidelity  to  an  original  faith  or  a  primal  understand- 
ing, when  he  functionated  as  the  representative  of  conjoint 
action,  and  to  realize  that  changes  in  public  declaration  of 
position  *  are  destructive  of  historical  accuracy,  stability  and 
confidence;  Melanchthon,  with  all  his  genius,  acted  most 
wisely  when  in  a  supplementary  station,  under  the  direction 
of  a  positive  guide. 

Barely  more  than  a  mere  lad  at  school  was  he,  when  he 
offered  the  classical  world  a  grammar  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, and  an  edition  of  Terence,  which  brought  the  com- 
mendation of  Erasmus.  Reuchlin  said  of  him,  "Among 
the  Germans  I  know  of  no  one  who  excels  liim,  except  Eras- 
mus of  Rotterdam,  and  he  is  a  Hollander." 

Wittenberg  soon  discovered  that  it  possessed  a  treasure  of 
the  most  rare  kind  in  this  frail-looking  new-comer,  "  the 
Grecian,"  as  he  had  been  known  in  earlier  days  by  his 
schoolmates.  "A  wonderful  man,  in  whom  everything  is 
well-nigh  supernatural, — my  most  cherished  and  intimate 
friend,"  wrote  Luther  to  Reuchlin,  less  than  four  months 
after  Melanchthon  arrived  in  the  city  of  the  Reformation.     . 

Melanchthon  received  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  divinity 
in  1521,  but  his  modesty  prevented  him,  throughout  his  life, 
from  accepting  the  Doctor's  degree,"  though,  as  a  teacher, 
no  other  man  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  was  held  in  such  high 
honor.  It  is  sad,  indeed,  to  think  that  this  delicate  and 
finely  strung  harp,  this  classic  voice,  tliis  sensitive  soul  was 

says  Herrlinger.  But  he  was  sensitive  to  a  point,  and  no  wonder,  in  view  of 
the  delicacy  of  his  temperament,  and  of  the  many  terrible  rebuffs  and  insults 
he  was  obliged  to  endure.  It  is  important  to  bear  this  peculiar  temperament 
of  Melanchthon, — which  characteristically  manifests  itself  in  peace-loving  and 
temperamentally   unionistic   theologians, — in   mind. 

*  And  still  more  so,  changes  of  position  itself. 

^  "  Titulus  aliquid  oneris  habet.  Vides  meura  exemplum  ;  nemo  me  perpellere 
potuit,  ut  ilium  quamlibet  honorificum  titulum  Doctoris  mihi  decerni  sinerent ; 
nee  ego  gradus  lllos  parvifacio  ;  sed  ideo,  quia  judico  esse  magna  ornamenta  et 
necessaria  Reipublicae,  verecunde  petendos  esse  et  conferendos  censeo." — C  R., 
IV,  811. 


MELANCHTHONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  G13 

torn  out  of  the  professional  chair,  to  enter  the  mighty  con- 
flicts and  struggles  of  a  rude  political  world  for  which  he 
was  not  fitted;  and  to  become  the  leader  of  the  Christian 
faith  in  trying  times,  when  stiirdy  confessors  and  not  tim- 
orous professors  were  needed  to  declare,  cling  to  and  stand 
by  the  Word  of  God,  without  fear  and  trembling;  and  when 
the  faith  required  was  that  in  an  objective  reality,  and  not 
that  of  a  believing  rationality. 

That  Melanchthon  was  not  fitted  to  stand  steady  amid 
the  sweeping  currents  of  religious  error,  was  shown  as  early 
as  1521,  when  the  Zwickau  prophets  appeared  in  Witten- 
berg and  he,  as  a  theologian,  was  unable  to  control  the  situ- 
ation.    On  Dec.  27th,  1521,  he  wrote  to  the  Elector: — 

"I  have  conversed  with  them  myself,  and  they  declare  most  wonderful 
things  concerning  themselves,  viz.,  that  God  with  a  loud  voice  sent  them  forth  to 
teach,  that  they  enjoy  most  intimate  conversations  with  God,  behold  future  events, 
and  that  they  are,  in  short,  prophetic  and  apostolic  men.  I  cannot  describe  how 
all  this  moves  me.  That  spirits  possess  them,  seems  to  be  established  by  many 
reasons,  concerning  which  no  one  can  easily  form  an  opinion  but  Martinus.  If 
the  Gospel  and  the  honor  and  peace  of  the  Church  are  in  any  danger,  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  that  these  people  should  have  an  interview  with  Martinus,  espe- 
cially as  they  appeal  to  him." 

JMelanclitlion  was  not  a  man  for  crisis,  nor  for  theological 
utterance  in  the  sense  of  declaring  and  establishing  the  Faith 
in  public  difficulty.  His  examination,  apprehension,  esti- 
mation, expression,  and  even  use  of  faith,  in  public  affairs, 
were  of  the  school,*  and  not  of  the  apostolic  order. 


•  Compare  Melanchthon's  Preface  to  the  third  edition  of  the  Loci :  Cum 
viderem  res  magnas  et  neeessarias  divinitus  patefactas  esse  in  nostris  ecclesiis 
per  viros  pios  et  doetos,  duxi  materias  illas  in  variis  scriptis  sparsas  colligendas 
esse  et  quodam  ordine  explicandas,  ut  facilius  percipi  a  juvenibus  possent. 
Hoe  velut  pensum  debere  me  in  hoc  scholastico  munere,  quod  gero  Ecclesjae 
Judieabam. — C.  R.,  XXI,  341.  Melanchthon  was  one  of  those  practical  men 
who  desire  to  make  truth  clear  and  easy,  and  whose  purpose  as  theologians 
Is  not  so  much  the  apprehension  of  doctrine  in  its  greatness,  as  the  reduction 
of  doctrine  to  terms  of  easy  and  clear  theological  construction.  Kahnis  Is 
right  in  his  remark  that  Melanchthon  was  "  jiot  a  theorist  but  a  teacher." 
Speculation  was  entirely  foreign  to  Melanchthon  and  his  mode  was  the  rea- 
soning of  the  schoolmaster,  who  "  defines  precisely,  divides  justly  and  com- 
bines appropriately." — C.  R.,  XI,  654.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  Melanch- 
thon's work  is  not  particularly  creative,  but  elaborates  elements  of  knowledge 
that   have   been   handed   down    by   another ;    and   why    his   Loci    are    "  a    sum- 


614         TEE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  miicli  appreciated  practical  character  of  Melanch- 
thon's  theology — which  avoided  the  deeper  problems,  and 
confined  itself  to  those  quae  aedificationem  conducunt,  quae 
ad  vitam  accommodata  sunt;  and  which  connects  Melanchthon 
with  the  moderate  theologians  in  the  beginning  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth, and  the  snpernaturalists  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century,  and  with  that  school  in  our  own  century 
which  feels  that  the  religious  rather  than  the  theological 
interests  of  the  church  should  be  emphasized,  proved  itself 
to  be  unequal  to  dealing  with  the  critical  situations  and  the 
grave  problems  that  arose  in  the  Church  throughout  Mel- 
anchthon's  life.  As  Plitt  says :  "  In  place  of  dealing  with 
difficulties,  ]\relauchthon  always  tried  to  evade  them."  ' 

It  was  just  about  the  time  when  ]\lelanchthon  liad  brought 
forth  his  first  dogmatic  system,  the  '  Loci,'  that  Carlstadt 
came  to  "Wittenberg;  and  rendered  the  sitdution  so  over- 
whelming for  Melanchthon  that  he  longed  and  prayed  for 
tlie  return  of  Lutlier  from  the  Wartburg. 

Xe?vertheloss  this  same  blessed  man  was  personally  great 
and  honorable  in  adherence  to  conviction.  When  tempted, 
not  long  afterward,  with  the  promise  of  a  high  position 
within  the  Roman  camp,  in  exchange  for  desertion  from  the 
Lutheran  ranks,  he  declared  to  C^ampeggius,  the  papal  legate 
in  Germany :  "  If  I  discover  anything  to  be  true,  I  hold  it 
fast,  aud  maintain  it  without  any  regard  to  the  consequences 
to  any  mortal,  without  any  regard  to  ad\antages,  honor  or 
cain." 


mary  of  ChriKtian  doctrine,  which  aU  men  ought  to  know."  Preface  to  the 
German   '  Loci,'   C.  R.,  XXII,   47. 

In  thi.s  sen^^e,  it  is  instructive  to  compare  the  idea  and  method  of  Melanch- 
thon with  those  of  Luther  in  his  popular  Catechisms.  In  thas  narrowing  his 
theology  to  school  purposes,  Melanchthon  seemed  to  be  more  concerned  with 
the  careful  elaboration  of  single  points,  and  their  defence  and  with  the  com- 
bination of  single  doctrines  that  belong  together,  than  with  the  building  up  of 
the  whole  into  a  system,  saj's  Herrlinger,  thus  leading  finally,  in  confining 
investigation  to  the  important  needs  of  the  situation — the  great  fault  of 
Melanchthon  also  in  his  negotiations  on  behalf  of  the  Church — to  a  low  scien- 
tific idfal.  Hence  Erasmus  wiote  him:  In  <tr,iptis  tuis,  in  qtiihiis  wihi  miilta 
arrident,  interdiirn  desidero  plus  circumspectioni.i.  Frequenter  eiihn  sic  leriter 
cap'ta  rerxtm  attlngia,  ut  negUgere  videaris,  (lukl  arguto  lectori  venire  posait 
in  mentem. — C.  R..  Ill,  87.     Cp.  Herrlinger. 

'  Introduction,   Augustana,  I,   537. 


MELANCHTHONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  615 

But  those  strong,  sententious  words  were  uttered  in  ref- 
erence to  his  own  personal  character  as  a  scholar  and  teacher. 
So  soon  as  the  welfare  of  the  Church  was  concerned  in  any 
movement,  or  so  soon  as  ties  of  sympathy  and  friendship 
appealed  to  him  from  an  opposite  party,  Melanchthon  was 
at  sea,  miserable  and  dejected  in  his  own  mind,  and  filled 
with  some  plan  to  extricate  the  cause  or  the  man  to  whom 
he  wished  to  be  a  friend,  by  the  devices  and  diplomacy  of 
human  reason,  rather  than  inspired  by  the  endeavor  simply  to 
do  the  right  thing,  and  then  leave  the  final  issue  to  the  Lord. 

In  many  of  the  Confessional  movements  in  which  Mel- 
anchthon was  concerned,  his  first  and  foremost  wish  was  for 
tranquillity — of  the  Church,  and  of  his  own  mind ;  and  his 
first  effort  was  to  secure  it.  He  was,  more  than  a  few 
times,  in  the  wretched  plight  of  not  being  able  either  to 
stem  the  tide  of  difficulty  in  the  Church,  or  to  persuade  him- 
self of  the  desirability  of  betaking  himself  out  of  it.  We 
occasionally  find  men  of  this  temperament  in  affairs  of 
state,  brilliant  in  gifts,  fertile  in  the  conception  of  plans, 
weak  and  near-sighted  in  execution,  and  yet,  by  some  strange 
fascination,  unable  to  restrain  themselves  from  participation 
in  the  progress  of  a  matter  in  which  they  are  deeply  in- 
terested. The  type  is  also  sometimes  found  in  womanhood — 
where  we  characterize  it  as  weak  and  meddlesome,  although, 
strictly  speaking,  this  is  not  correct;  since  there  is  in  such 
character  a  strength,  or  bravery,  of  a  minor  order,  prone 
to  persist,  but  neither  efficient  to  resist,  nor  sufficient  to 
conquer. 

Xevertheless,  Luther  rightly  estimated  the  gifts,  the  labors 
and  the  spirit  of  Melanchthon,  as  of  the  most  incalculable 
value.  Luther  recommends  him  to  Spalatin  as  follows :  ''  I 
would  most  heartily  commend  to  you  Philip,  the  great  Gre- 
cian, the  thorough  scholar,  and  most  amiable  man.  His 
lecture-room  is  crowded  with  hearers.  It  is  owing  to  him, 
principally,  that  all  theologians,  the  first,  middle,  and  lowest 
class,  are  studying  Greek." 


616        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

And  when  John  Eck  obtruded  his  vainglorious  learning 
upon  the  scene,  Luther  again  wrote  to  Spalatin :  "  I  again 
come  to  speak  of  Philip,  whom  no  Eck  can  bring  me  to  hate, 
and  whose  testimony  in  my  favour  I  always  esteem  higher 
than  anything  else.  The  judgment  and  opinion  of  this  sin- 
gle man  is  of  more  value  to  me  than  that  of  many  thousand 
worthless  Ecks,  and  I  would  not  be  ashamed,  although  I 
am  a  Master  of  Arts,  of  Philosophy  and  Theology,  and  am 
adorned  almost  with  all  the  titles  of  Eck,  to  leave  my  own 
opinion,  if  this  Grammarian  could  not  agree  with  it.  I 
have  often  done  this,  and  do  it  still,  because  of  the  divine 
gift  which  God  has  deposited  in  this  frail  vessel.  .  .  .  Philip 
I  do  not  praise,  he  is  a  creature  of  God." 

This  opinion  of  Luther  continued.  Early  in  1530,  he 
wrote  to  Jonas :  "  All  the  Jeromes,  Hillarys,  and  Macariuses 
together,  are  not  worthy  to  unloose  the  thong  of  Philip's 
sandal.  What  have  the  whole  of  them  together  done  which 
can  be  compared  with  one  year  of  Philip's  teaching,  or  to  his 
one  book  of  Common  Places  ?  I  prefer  ]\Ielanchthon's  books 
to  my  own,  and  would  rather  have  them  circulated  than  mine. 
I  was  born  to  battle  with  conspirators  and  devils,  therefore 
my  books  are  more  vehement  and  warlike.  It  is  my  work 
to  tear  up  the  stumps  and  dead  roots,  to  cut  away  the  thorns, 
to  fill  up  the  marshes.  I  am  the  rough  forester  and  pioneer. 
But  Melanchthon  moves  gently  and  calmly  along,  with  his 
rich  gifts  from  God's  own  hand,  building  and  planting,  sow- 
ing and  watering." 

Melanchthon  was  not  a  mere  "  Grecian,"  but  a  true  and 
learned  Christian,  having  become  such  early  from  his  con- 
stant reading  of  the  Scriptures.  The  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  was  his  before  he  reached  Wittenberg. 

The  ethical  earnestness  of  his  thoughts,  the  purity  of  his 
style,  and  the  marvelousness  of  his  gifts  of  apprehension, 
order,  and  expression,  the  wonderful  clearness  of  his  pre- 
sentation and  the  subtle  taste  of  the  true  litterateur  drew 
crowds  of  students  from  all   parts  of  the  German  empire. 


MELANCHTHONIAN  PRINCIPLE.  617 

Heerbrand,  in  an  oration  to  his  memory,  declares  that  Me- 
lanchthon  had  as  many  as  two  thousand  pupils  and  hearers, 
among  whom  were  princes,  counts,  barons  and  other  no- 
blemen." 

Melanchthon's  public  grasp  of  subject-matter  even  in  his 
more  free  and  facile  moods '  was  that  of  epitome."* 

The  mind  of  Melanchthon  was  assimilative,  not  creative,"* 
judicial  in  the  weighing  of  materials  with  painful  anxiety, 
illuminative,  summaristic  and  naturally  expressive.  lie 
gathered  the  principles  of  the  two  great  classic  languages 
into  a  simple  unity;  and  his  grammars  continued  to  pass 
through  new  editions  from  the  start  of  his  academic  career 
until  long  after  his  death."     After  receiving  the  degree  of 


*  Reuchlin  and  Erasmus  became  famous  by  their  editions  and  writings  on 
the  classics,  but  Melanchthon  attracted  young  men  by  his  lectures  as  well  as 
by  his  writings. 

'  Not  t:o  in  private  correspondence,  when  his  wealth  of  expression  and  detail 
of  learning  tempted  him  to  unburden  himself  with  almost  unmeasured  fullness. 

"  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  in  how  far  the  rejecting  of  the  earlier 
frames,  and  the  casting  of  the  final  form  of  the  Formula  of  Conoord  were 
due  to  the  fine,  clear-cut  and  orderly  influence  of  Melanchthon  upon  the  minds 
of  those  who  wrote  the  Formula. 

"  Melanchthon  was  not  an  original  spirit,  drawing  his  strength  out  of  the 
great  deeps.  His  nature  was  prevailingly  receptive,  and  the  extraordinary 
versatility  of  this  receptivity,  by  which  he  combined  in  himself  all  the  elements 
of  culture  in  his  day,  could  not,  despite  his  undeniable  effort  to  relate  all  the 
sciences  to  theology,  be  favorable  to  that  concentration  of  thought  in  the 
realm  of  theology  which  is  necessary  for  the  formation  of  a  complete  and  con- 
sistent system.  But  Melanchthon's  receptivity  is  always  turned  first  and  fore- 
most to  theology,  especially  to  the  Scripture.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church 
is  indeed  to  be  a  (jrammatica  serntonis  divini.  And,  further,  Melanchthon 
never  conceals  his  theological  dependence  upon  Luther.  Cp.  his  words  even 
in  his  last  Testament,  C.  B.,  Ill,  827  :  ago  gratias  rev.  Doctorl  Luthero,  quia 
ab  eo  Evangelium  didici  ;  also  VII,  479. — Herrlingcr. 

" "  His  Latin  Grammar,  prepared  originally  for  his  private  pupils,  was 
almost  universally  adopted  in  Europe,  running  through  fifty-one  editions,  afad 
continuing  until  1734  to  be  the  text-book  even  in  the  Roman  Catholic  schools  of. 
Saxony.  His  Greek.  Grammar  also  enjoyed  great  popularity.  Of  his  Terence, 
73  editions  had  been  published  within  106  years  of  its  first  publication.  He 
also  published  either  scholia  upon  or  expositions  or  paraphrases  of  the  De 
Officiis,  Laelius,  De  Oratore,  Orator,  Topicae,  Epistles;  and  19  Orations  of 
Cicero,  Porcius,  Latro,  Sallust,  the  Germania  of  Tacitus,  Pliny,  Quintilian, 
1.  xii,  six  orations  of  Demosthenes,  one  of  Aeschines,  I^yeurgus,  Stobreus,  Aelian, 
Lueian,  Thncydides,  Xenophon,  Plutarch,  Lysis,  Ptolemseus,  selections  from 
Homer  and  Sophocles,  18  tragedies  of  Euripides,  Aristophanes,  Menander, 
19th  Tdyl  of  Theocritus,  Tyrta'us,  Solon,  Theognis,  Calimachus,  Pindar, 
Empedocles,  Virgil,  Ovid,  the  Miles  of  Plautus,  and  the  Theognis  of  Seneca, 
in  addition  to  composijng  391  Latin  and  Greek  odes.  His  style  (genus  dicevdi 
PhiUppiciim),  which  is  said,  in  purity  of  diction  and  correctness  of  classical 
taste,  to  excel  even  that  of  Erasmus,  for  a  time  was  regarded  in  the  schools 
as  a  model,  even  to  the  exclusion  of  Cicero  and  Quintilian." — Summary  by 
H.  E.  J.,  in  McClintock  &  Strong. 


618        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFE^^ION^. 

Master  of  Arts,  he  lectured  chiefly  on  the  Latin  classics, 
Virgil,  Terence,  Cicero  and  Livy.'^ 

But  he  was  interested  as  well  in  the  forms  of  thought,  as 
in  the  art  or  form  of  expression,  and  in  all  that  goes  to 
make  up  the  personality  of  man;  and  he  wrote  the  philosoph- 
ical text-hooks  of  his  day, — the  Epitome  Philosoplilce  Mor- 
alis,  the  De  Aiiinia,  and  the  De  Dialeciica. 

For  Melanchthon  was  not  a  m(n-e  stylist,  but  a  born  dia- 
lectician. His  definition  of  logic  as  "  the  art  of  speaking 
by  defining,  dividing^  and  aligning  ",  reveals  his  mind  and 
method  in  theology." 

It  was  he,  and  he  alone,  who  impressed  the  dialectic  and 
text-book  stamp  upon  tlie  form  of  Lutheran  theology,  from 
its  first  beginning  to  the  very  end  of  its  highly  wrought-out 
orthodox  and  classic  period,  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.*' 

The  complete  departure  of  the  early  and  later  Lutheran 
theological  form  from  the  method  and  the  more  vital  and 
germinal  insight  of  Luther,  into  the  modified  Aristotelian 
frame  of  logical  definition,  and  into  a  continuance  of  the 
academic  disputation  of  the  medissval  schoolmen,  was  me- 
diated, as  well  as  simplified  and  modernized,  by  Melanch- 
thon. This  was  Melanehthon's  "  Ivhetoric  ",  which  Luther 
nud  the  other  Reformers  refer  to  as  hindering  Melanehthon's 
faith." 


"He  began  lecturing  on  the  Scriptures  during  his  first  winter  at  Witten- 
berg, taking  up  Titus.  Psalms,  Matt,  and  Rom.  His  published  lectures  on 
Scripture  embrace  Gen.,  Prov.,  Eccl.,  Isaiah,  Jer.,  Lam.,  Dan.  Hag.,  Zech., 
Mai.,  John,  Rom.,   Cor.,   Col.,  and  Tim. 

'*  At  the  University  of  Heidelberg  he  had  heard  the  (jarrula  dialectica  et 
parliciila  physices,  and  had  worked  himself  with  youthful  enthusiasm  into  the 
Grammatik,  Rhetorik,  and  Dialectik  of  the  day. 

'^  The  tendency  to  reduce  Theology  to  a  philosophy,  and  to  its  humanistic 
and  practical  value — among  some  of  the  Melanchthonian  theologians  in  the 
Twentieth  Century,  could  probably  be  traced  back  to  Melanchthon.  indirectly 
through  the  pietistic  and  rationalistic  influences  of  the  Eighteenth  Century, 
and  through  the  mental  frame  and  phrase  of  the  great  American  Melanch- 
thonian, S.  S.  Schmucker  :  but  it  is  also  d\ie  to  contact  with  humanistic  sources 
in  typical  American  religious  denominations,  and  to  contact  with  the  in- 
fluence of  common  American  Christianity. 

'•  Vid.  the  correspondence  concerning  the  Augsburg  Diet  in  Chapters  XIX 
and  XX. 


M  E  LAN  C  H  T  H  0  N I  AN   PRINCIPLE.  619 

But  the  Melanchtlionian  principle  embraced  more  than  the 
logic  of  simplified  definition,  and  the  rhetoric  of  its  clear  and 
harmonious  setting  forth.  Unlike  Luther,  Melanchthon,  fol- 
lowing the  bent  of  his  nature  and  his  humanistic  education/' 
laid  stress  on  PhilosopJiy  "  (it  was  a  simplified  Aristotelian 
type)" — based  on  the  lumen  naturale,^  on  a  natural  religion, 
and  a  natural  law ;  which,  though  beclouded  by  sin,  is  a  real 
gift  and  power  in  human  nature.  In  his  '  locus '  on  the 
nature  of  God,  for  instance,  he  starts  with  the  "  true,  per- 
tinent thoughts  "  of  Plato,  which  are  founded  upon  mature 
reasonings,  and  says  they  "  must  siill  have  added  to  them 
the  attributes  which  God  himself  has  revealed."  *" 

The   lumen  naturale   is   practically   a  foundation  and  a 


"  Melanchthon    approached   philosophy    thnmyh   philology. 

"  To  philosophy  Melanchthon  reckoned  the  formal  arts,  and  also  found 
admincula  for  theology  in  the  metaphysical  material  of  philosophy.  He  took 
from  the  old  church  philosophy,  his  psychological  and  ethical  conceptions,  and 
sought  to  fill  them  out  with  an  evangelical  experience.  In  such  doctrines  as 
those  of  the  trinity,  justification,  the  sacraments,  he  sought  to  find  points  of 
connection  between  the  revealed,  or  dogmatic,  and  the  natural,  or  humanistic, 
idea.  He  regards  philosophy  as  moderata  investigatrix  vcritatis,  but  he  warns 
against  confusing  the  two  spheres,  and  places  philosophy  beneath  the  revealed 
truth  which  is  the  prcBCipua  rcctrix  opinionum  [sic]  et  vitce.  He  was  a  pro- 
nounced Aristotelian,  and  successfully  turned  that  system  into  a  philosophia 
simplex,  vitce.  ut:Us. — C.  R.,  XI,  344. 

Yet  Melanchthon  purified  his  teachings  from  the  speculative  elements  of 
the  schoolmen.  He  depreciates  the  undue  ascendency  of  Aristotle  instead  of 
Christ  in  his  own  day.  as  he  also  does  the  undue  influence  of  Platonism  in  the 
Ancient  Church. — Loci    (Plitt-Kolde),  p.   37. 

""Among  his  philosophical  works  were  an  Epitome  of  Moral  Philosojh}/; 
Elements  of  Ethics;  Commentary  on  AriMotle's  Politics;  Elements  of  Rhetoric; 
Logical  Questions;  and  dissertations  on  ethical  subjects,  such  as  oaths,  con- 
tracts, etc.  For  many  years  instruction  in  these  works  was  the  regular 
course  in  ethics  in  most  of  the  schools  of  Protestant  Germany.  Haliam  pro- 
nounced them  "  more  clear,  elegant,  and  better  arranged  than  those  of  Aristotle 
himself  or  his  commentators  "  (Haliam,  Literature,  ii,  50).  He  was  the 
author,  also,  of  an  elementary  text-book  of  physics,  and  a  sketch  of  universal 
history,  from  the  creation  to  the  Reformation,  Chronicon  Carionis." — Summary 
of  H.  E.  Jacobs,   in  McClintock  &  Strong. 

^"yill,  514,   577,  648. 

"  "  The  possession  of  this  additional  and  unique  revelation,  of  course,  does 
not  annul  or  displace  the  data  from  which  natural  theology  derives  its  invalu- 
able theistic  and  religious  truth.  These  continue  in  their  ovjn  rightful  force 
and  validity,  for  full  consideration  in  theological  grounds  and  verifications. 
The  disposition,  sometimes  shown,  to  contemn  and  exclude  from  Christian 
theology  the  data  that  have  illuminated  the  icay  of  natural  theology  into  the 
great  fundamental  realities  of  the  divine  existence  and  many  of  the  divine 
prerogatives  and  attributes  and  of  the  religious  nature  and  responsibility  of 
man.  is  manifestly  unjustifiable.  These  have  lost  none  of  their  intrinsic 
legitimacy  by  reason  of  the  added  light,  and  rightly  form  auxiliary  sources 
in  theological  determinations." — Valentine,  Christian  Theology,  I,  22,  23. 


620        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

frame — not  however  here  iu  a  synergistic  sense  '^ — on  which 
theology  is  to  be  built.  Theology  is  to  be  put  into  form  and 
taught — rather  than  to  rise  out  of  the  Word  into  faith,  and 
through  faith  to  be  expressed  in  every  act  of  life.  We  are 
dealing  with  statements  of  principle,  rather  than  with  prin- 
ciples. The  academy  takes  the  place  of  the  battle-field. 
Reason  enters  theology  at  the  lower  root,  and  orders  it ;  and 
ethics  takes  theology  in  the  upper  branch,  and  applies  it. 
In  Melanchthon's  use  of  the  rational  frame,  we  must,  how- 
ever, remember  that  speculation  and  rational  substance  have 
have  no  place. 

Melanchthon  is  guided,  throughout  his  long  life  of  thought, 
by  two  leading  principles,  both  practical, — first,  to  preserve 
the  historical  continuity  of  the  church,  i.  e.,  the  visible 
church ;  and  second,  to  re-frame  and  re-state  the  doctrine, 
according  to  new  light  and  the  latest  need.  In  these  two 
principles  there  lies  concealed  an  antithesis  or  contradic- 
tion on  which  the  Melanchthonian  theology  shatters  itself. 
"  Historical  continuity  "  and  "  unbroken  visible  unity  "  re- 
quire stability ;  Avhile  "  restatement "  involves  the  possibil- 
ity of  constant  fluidity,  breaking  up,  and  change.  We  can- 
not have  the  fixed  and  the  variable  together.^  We  cannot 
"  be  firm  "  and  ''  accommodate  "  at  the  same  time.  We 
must  give  up  either  "  continuity  "  or  "  changefulness."  The 
many  seemingly  contradictory  theological  frames  and  ac- 
tions of  Melanchthon  whether  toward  the  Roman  or  the  Re- 
formed extreme,  are  rendered  intelligible  when  we  find  his 
mind  possessed  of  both  these  principles,  the  one  or  the  other 
of  which  is  called  forth  by  the  situation  immediately  before 
him. 

As  a  teacher  of  logic,  and  in  theology — except  as  to  form 
of  discussion — Melanchthon  was  not  germinal,  but  reflexive 

"  In  Paul,  Melanchthon  finds  the  way  to  .Tustitia,  that  is,  to  perfect^v  virtus, 
qvas  ex  animo  heat  iws.  Unlike  Luther.  Melanchthon  found  his  inner  peace 
on  the  way  of  moral  perfection.  But  he  had  learned  from  Paul  that  Christ 
is  our  righteousness,  and  that  the  power  and  joy  of  virtue  follows  only  from 
the  certitude  of  forgiveness. — Institutio  theologica  of  1519.     C.  R.,  XXI,  49  sq. 

-'  I,   e.f  on  parallel   lines, 


MELANCHTHONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  621 

and  practical,  without  an  inner  and  constant  principle 
of  organic  unfolding.  He  was  progressive  in  the  appre- 
hension of  philological,  historical  and  logical  investigation. 

That  Melanchthon  was  variable,  or  changeful,  that  is  that 
he  regarded  the  inner  principle  not  so  much  in  its  objective 
being  as  in  its  outer  form  of  statement,  on  which  he  con- 
stantly sought  to  "  improve  ",  needs  no  demonstration.  His 
unreliability  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion; his  habit  of  apprehending  truth  in  itself  indeed,  but 
also  in  its  propinquities  and  relations  to  his  ecclesiastical 
environment ;  and  his  free  shifting  of  the  point  of  view,  es- 
pecially when  and  wdiere  he  was  not  steadied, — constituted 
his  weakness. 

The  Lord's  Supper,  with  him,  for  instance,  was  a  matter 
of  logical  conception.  "  For  ten  years  neither  day  nor  night 
has  passed,"  he  wrote  in  1537,  "  in  which  I  have  not  reflected 
on  this  subject."  In  1529,  he  would  rather  die  than  be 
contaminated  by  union  with  the  Zwinglians.'^'  In  the  Au- 
gustana  he  reflected  and  expressed  Luther's  teaching.  In 
Augsburg,  a  month  or  two  later,  in  his  Opinion  Concerning 
the  Foundation  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacramentarians 
(found  in  English  Booh  of  Concord,  II,  pp.  241-243)  he 
declared  that  "  Bucer  is  wrong  in  contending  that  he  agrees 
with  us.  .  .  .  Bucer  diffuses  mist.  .  .  .  We  require  not 
only  the  presence  of  the  power,  but  of  the  body.  This 
Bucer  disguises  purposely.  .  .  .  Bucer  seems  to  me  to  be 
preparing  a  plot  when  he  says  that  we  agree.  .  .  .  We  deny 
transubstantiation  and  that  the  body  is  locally  in  the  bread. 


*3»    "  Cheer   up   about   the   Zwinglian    '  Rotte.'      I    myself   experienced,    when 
their  wheelhorses  were   (at  Marburg),  that  they  have  no  Christian  doctrine. 

I  would  rather  die  than  to  hold  wth  them  and  say  that  the  body 
of  Christ  must  and  can  be  only  at  one  place.  Therefore  only  go  ahead  and 
censure  them,  publicly  and  privately,  when  and  where  there  is  opportunity. 
Censure  this  in  them,  that  they  teach  nothing  right  of  the  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments. There  is  found  indeed  in  all  the  Zwinglian  books  not  a  single  annunci- 
ation of  faith,  by  which  we  become  righteous  before  God.  Even  when  they 
mention  the  faith,  they  do  not  mean  the  faith  which  believes  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  is  sure  that  we  are  received  into  grace,  heard  and  protected  and 
kept  by  God ;  but  they  only  mean  a  historical  faith  (which  also  the  devils 
have),  a  mere  empty  knowledge." — Melanchthon  to  Martin  Gorlitz,  about 
March,   1530. 

43 


623         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

.  .  .  We  declare  confidentl}'  that  the  present  Christ  dis- 
tributes his  body  and  blood  for  us  to  eat  and  drink."  In 
the  first  edition  of  the  Apology,  "  he  at  least  approximated 
very  closely  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  In 
1531,  he  gave  up  the  theory  of  ubiquity ;  under  studies  of  the 
Church  Fathers,  he  more  fully  abandoned  Luther's  teach- 
ing, and  finally  in  the  edition  of  the  Confession  of  1540,  he 
approximated  to  that  of  Bucer  and  Calvin." "" 

When  he  came  to  Wittenberg,  Melanchthon  was  filled  with 
the  idea  of  a  Reformation  in  the  Church  by  a  renaissance 
of  science  and  learning/'  Under  the  impetus  of  this  hu- 
manistic ideal,  he  began  his  multitudinous  literary  labors 
by  lecturing  on  Homer,  and  on  the  epistle  to  Titus.  Side 
by  side  the  classical  and  the  confessional  principle  lived  and 
grew  in  his  mind,  and  bore,  in  their  union,  their  first  fruit 
in  a  brief  statement  of  the  Scripture  doctrines  in  the  neAv, 
clear  form,  for  his  own  private  use.  This  statement  of 
doctrines  he  used  as  an  introduction  in  lecturing  on  Romans, 
and  his  students  thought  it  so  good  that  they  published  it 
unrevised,  and  without  his  consent. 

Then  j\relanchthon,  though  in  the  midst  of  the  Zwickau 
difficulties,  published  this  first  evangelical  dogmatics  imder 
the  title  loci  communes  rcr.  theologicarum,  seu  Hy polyposes 
theologicoe,  Dec,  1521. 

Luther  was  so  pleased  with  the  book  that  he  called  it 
"  liber  invictus,  non  solum  immortalitate,  sed  et  canone  eccle- 
siastico  dignus." 

Of  it,  the  Romish  Alphonso  de  Zamara  is  said  to  have 
declared :  ''  It  explains  its  doctrinal  statements  in  such  ap- 
propriate and  accurate  terms,  and,  by  a  methodical  treatment, 
renders  them  so  clear  and  strong,  that  it  is  injuring  the  papal 
power  more  than  all  other  writings  of  the  Lutherans." 

Calvin,  later,  wrote,  in  line  with  Melanchthon's  main 
purpose,  and  revealing  in  a  word  or  two  the  great  difference 

"From  Schaff,  not  strictly  correct,  but  sufflciently  so  to  illustrate  the  point. 
^' Plitt,  Mel.  loci  comm.  in  ihrer  Vrgcstalt,  1864,  p.   34. 


MELANCHTHONIAX   PRIXCIPLE.  623 

between  !Melaiiclithon"s  life-aim  as  a  theologian,  and  a  truly 
scientific  inquiry  or  construction  of  the  Christian  doctrine: 
"  So  beautiful  is  the  proof  that  it  affords,  that  the  most 
perfect  simplicity  is  the  noblest  method  of  handling  the 
Christian  doctrine." 

This  sudden  and  complete  Protestant  theological  pcdagogik 
was  of  such  value  to  the  Reformation,  and  seemed  to  reveal 
such  powers  in  its  author,  that  Luther  tried  to  have  Mel- 
anchthon  relieved  from  his  work  on  the  classics,  in  order 
that  he  might  give  his  whole  strength  to  theology.  Melanch- 
thon  himself  objected,  and  intimated  that  if  it  were  neces- 
sary to  choose  between  the  two,  he  would  demit  theology  in 
favor  of  the  classics. 

But  he  now  plunged  with  Luther  into  the  task  of  trans- 
lating the  Scriptures,  the  inner  basis  of  the  Reformation; 
and  then  came  the  Diets,  and  Conventions,  and  doctrinal 
statements,  the  outer  basis  of  the  Reformation.  The  almost 
unbearable  burden  of  framing  these  many  statements  fell 
upon  the  frail  shoulders  of  our  wonderful  thinker  and 
scholar. 

It  therefore  was  1535  before  a  second  main  edition  of  the 
'  Loci '  was  published,  by  which  time  the  humanistic  seeds 
in  Melanchthon's  mind  had  so  far  developed  into  theological 
substance,  that  the  predestinarian  sentence,  "All  things  hap- 
pen necessarily,"  was  removed,  and  room  was  left  for  the 
synergistic  growth,"'  which  the  mind  of  Melanchthon  man- 
ifested in  the  next  decade. 

By  1543,  when  the  greater  differences  in  thinking  between 
Luther  and  Melanchthou  had  come  plainly  to  the  surface, 
and  Melanchthon  had  been  in  constant  communication  with 
the  Reformed  divines  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,^'  while  at  the  same  time  he  had  advanced  so  far  as 
to  lean  toward  Rome  in  the  synergistic  doctrine  of  free  will 
and  good  works ;  and  after  the  Variata  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 

=«  Cp.  Chap.  XXII. 

-''  Ih.,  and  alf^o  following  chapters. 


624         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

fession  had  appeared,  he  issued  the  third  main  edition  of  his 
■^  Loci/  ^  in  enlarged  form  in  which  he,  to  use  the  words  of 
Jacobs,"**  ''  so  far  changed  on  that  subject  as  to  seem  far  more 
in  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  Erasmns  than  that  of  Lu- 
ther." In  the  edition  of  1548,  Melanchthon  went  so  far  as 
to  boldly  say,  "  Liberum  arbitrinm  est  in  homine  facultas  ap- 
plicandi  se  ad  gratiam."  The  opinion  has  been  advanced, 
and  indeed  with  some  degree  of  truth,  that  without  the  as- 
sociation with  Luther,  Melanchthon,  in  his  reformation  of 
doctrine,  "  would  have  become  or  remained  a  second  Eras- 
mus ",  i.  e.,  not  in  the  worst  Erasmian,  but  in  the  religious 
Erasmian  sense. 

It  was  Melanchthon's  contradictory  principle  of  ecclesi- 
astical conservatism  and  intellectual  change,  together  with 
the  intimacy  with  Bucer,  the  cross-field  thinking  of  Osiander, 
and  the  onward  development  of  the  external  situation,  that 
introduced  and  prolonged  the  many  controversies  into  which 
he  was  plunged.  The  methi:)d,  and,  in  part,  the  content  of 
the  controversies,  as  well  as  the  form  of  the  later  Lutheran 
system,  were  furnished  by  j\Ielanchthon. 

Thus  in  a  most  important  sense,  the  spirit  of  Melanchthon, 
and  not  that  of  Luther,  led  to  the  doctrinal  formularies  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century  and  to  the  ultra-orthodoxy  of  the 
Seventeenth,  after  the  original  spirit  of  free  investigation 
had  died  away.  Dilthey  and  Ilartfeldcr  have  pointed  out 
that  the  theology  of  Melanchthon  combines  the  articles  of 
faith    with    ancient    cosmology    in    the    scholastic    style    of 


^  According  to  Chemnitz,  Luther  often  paid,  that  there  was  more  solid 
doctrine  in  the  '  Loci '  than  in  any  other  book  that  had  appeared  since  the 
days  of  the  Apostles. 

When  the  changes  came  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  'Loci'  Luther 
was  silent, — to  avoid  a  personal  break  between  his  friend  and  himself,  and  a 
public  break   in   the   University,   the   State,    and  the   Church. 

When  Luther  revised  the  German  translation  of  the  '  Loci  '  by  Jonas,  he 
suggested  that  ''  Justification  "  and  "  the  Holy  Supper  "  were  not  treated  with 
sufficient   fulness. 

Jacobs  says,  "  The  renowned  Loci  Theologici  of  Chemnitz  is  a  commentary 
upon  Melanchthon's  Loci.  Similar  commentaries  were  written  by  Prastorius, 
Pezel,  Strigel,  and  Fabricius ;  while  Spangenberg,  Sohu,  Mayer  and  Hem- 
mingius  have  prepared  abridgments.  For  many  years  it  continued  to  be  a 
text-book   in  the  Lutheran  schools,   until   supplanted  by  Hutter's  Compeud." 

="  Melanchthon   in  McC.  <£  Strony. 


MELANCHTHONIAN  PRINCIPLE.  G35 

Thomas  Aquinas ;  "*  though,  unlike  Thomas,  Melanchthon 
does  not  go  so  far  in  uniting  the  two  as  to  construct  a  system 
of  metaphysics,  but  limits  himself  to  man's  natural  con- 
sciousness as  a  point  of  departure.  Yet  Seeberg  is  sure  that 
this  combination  made  by  Melanchthon  led  historically  to 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  Seventeenth,  as  well  as  to  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  Eighteenth  Century. 

"  It  may  be  said,"  declares  Seeberg,  "  that  the  mainte- 
nance and  spread  of  '  pure  doctrine  '  is  the  great  motive  which 
inspired  Melanchthou's  life-work,  as  a  Reformer  of  the 
church  and  of  the  universities,  as  a  theologian,  philologian, 
and  teacher.^"" 

"  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  thus  also  understand  his 
fatal  attitude  toward  the  Interim,  C.  R.,  VII,  382  sq.,  322 
sq.,  and  toward  Calvin  and  his  party;  for,  aside  from  the 
deviations  which  had  separated  himself  as  well  from  Luther, 
he  believed  himself  to  be  in  doctrinal  accord  with  Calvin — 
and  everything  to  his  mind  depended  upon  doctrine. 

"  This  involved  again,  as  compared  with  Luther,  a  narrow- 
ing of  the  horizon,  resulting  not  merely  from  the  great  im- 
portance attached  to  the  *  pure  doctrine ',  but  from  the  fact 
that  the  life-giving  energy  of  the  church  was  attributed  to 
the  latter.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  these  views  are  to 
be  found  the  germs  of  the  errors  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Sev- 
enteenth Century."  " 

Seeberg  is  partially  conscious  of  Melanchthou's  inconsist- 


^''  But  In  simple  form  and  with  a  purely  practical  view. 

^o*  This  explains  his  great  severity  toward  heretics  [e.  g.,  Servetus]. — C.  R., 
II,  18  ;  III,  197  sq..  199,  241  sq.  ;  VIII,  520  sq.  ;  IV,  739 ;  XII,  699 ; 
XXIV,    375,   501. 

^  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  II,  pp.  355-356.  Seeberg  disclaims  novelty 
for  this  position,  and  points  to  Gottfried  Arnold,  Zierold  (1700),  and  RitschI 
(Die  Entstehung  der  luth.  Kirche),  as  its  earlier  exponents.     Cp.  also  p.  363: — 

"  The  practical  application  of  these  principles  and  views  led  to  the  lament- 
able doctrinal  controversies  in  the  period  from  the  death  of  Luther  to  that  of 
Melanchthon.  Both  the  unfortunate  wavering  of  Melanchthon  in  connection 
with  the  Interim — when  the  doctrine  appeared  to  him  to  be  sufBciently 
guarded— and  the  bitter  assaults  made  upon  him  by  the  so-called  Gnesio- 
Lutherans  for  his  lack  of  firmness  upon  that  occasion  and  for  his  doctrinal 
divergencies  find  explanation  in  the  one-sided  character  of  his  later  con- 
ceptions of  the  church  and  of  doctrine." 


626        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ent  double  principle, — pure  doctrine  as  manifested  histori- 
callv  in  the  outward  unfolding  of  the  church,  and  pure  doc- 
trine as  mediated  inwardly  by  the  logical  thought  of  the  in- 
dividual investigator;  but,  while  he  emphasizes  the  perma- 
nency of  Melanchthon's  form,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
contradiction  in  the  substance  of  the  Melanchthonian  prin- 
ciple. 

The  Melanchthonian  nature,  principle  and  practice,  though 
of  such  well-meant  and  kindly  intent,  operated  unfortunately 
throughout  all  the  great  events  of  the  Reformation;  and  it 
will  be  of  great  service  to  the  ultimate  purpose  for  which  this 
work  has  been  written,  if  we  shall  be  able  to  make  a  true 
analysis  of  it,  which  will  be  appreciative  at  once  of  its  ele- 
ments of  strength,  and  of  its  disastrous  elements  of  weakness. 

In  personal  intellectual  bravery,  Melanchthon  was  im- 
flinching.  His  masterly  defense  of  Luther  against  the  Sor- 
bonne,  and  before  his  old  friend  Erasmus,  prove  this  fact. 
His  personal  loyalty  is  also  unquestionable.  For  many 
years  he  clung  to  Luther  with  all  his  heart.  He  most  faith- 
fully reproduced  and  elaborated  the  doctrine  of  Luther.  He 
was  the  first  one ''  to  understand  the  great  service  of  Luther 
in  the  historical  development  of  Christianity;  and  he  counts 
Luther  among  the  mighty  heroes  of  the  faith,  among  Isaiah, 
John  the  Baptist,  Paul  and  Augustine.  He  tells  us  that 
"  Luther  brought  to  light  the  true  and  necessary  doctrine,'^ 
and  that  we  must  hold  fast  to  the  pure  doctrine,  viz.,  the 
Confessio  Lutlierl." 

He  clearly  understood  and  assiduously  applied  the  car- 
dinal principles  of  the  Reformation,  in  a  mild,  considerate, 
courteous  and  admirably  thoughtful  way.  We  already  have 
alluded  to  his  '  Loci.'  In  addition,  we  may  cite  his  Work  on 
the  Saxon  Visitation,  sometimes  called  the  First  Confession 
of  Faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  which  he  had  presented 
a  most  sound  and  discriminating  apidication  of  Lutheran  doc- 


s=  Seeberg,  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  11.   p.   352. 
"8  C.  R.,  XI,  728. 


MELANCHTHONIAN  PRINCIPLE.  627 

trine,  though  in  such  mild  form  that  he  was  supposed  by  the 
enemies  of  the  Reformation  to  be  yielding  to  Home,  and  was 
obliged  to  suffer  much  pain  of  mind  in  consequence."  Then, 
there  follows  his  great  Augsburg  Confession  and  his  great 
Apology,  with  all  the  multitude  of  his  teachings  and  lectures. 

The  first  startling  weakness  that  we  come  upon,  in  Mel- 
anchthon,  is  that  on  nearly  every  great  occasion,  he  lacked 
the  strong  faith  of  Luther;  and  the  cautious  operation  of  his 
intellect — his  distrust  of  the  power  of  triumph  in  the  right — 
his  apparent  inability  to  take  an  age-long  look,  to  see  the 
eternal  view  of  his  work — and  his  desire  for  immediately 
favorable  results — together  with  his  apparent  inability  to 
trust  Providence  in  the  midst  of  clouds  because  of  a  tempera- 
ment that  went  to  pieces  under  unfavorable  conditions,  made 
him  wretched.  He  depended  too  much  on  the  opinion  of 
others,  and  seemed  to  be  unable  to  stand  on  his  own  feet  no 
matter  what  Rome  says  or  does.  So  he  wrote  from  Spires 
to  Myconius,  "  for  here  we  are  objects  of  scorn  to  the  proud 
spirits,  and  of  derision  to  the  rich  " — not  such  a  dreadful 
thing  for  a  follower  of  Christ, — and  a  Lutheran  at  that ! 

But  let  us  proceed  to  a  second  point.  Melanchthon's  faith 
was  not  firm  and  great,  because  his  reason  was  always  in- 
terfering with  his  faith — and  he,  in  a  sense,  followed  his 
reason.  His  scholarly  instincts  were  all  conservative,  and 
his  ripe  judgment  was  ever  preservative,  but  his  prime  point 
of  contact  was  rationalistic.  He  walked  by  faith  indeed, 
but  faith  that  was  dependent  upon  reason;  upon  sight,  and 
not  upon  insight.  Hence  when  sight  and  reason  wavered 
or  shifted,  faith  followed  in  its  wake. 

Melanchthon  was  already  worrying  about  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  at  Spires  in  1529,  and  wrote  to  his  close 
friend  Oecolampadius:  ''  It  is  very  painful  to  me  that  discord 

**  Melanchthon  to  Camerarius :  "  Indeed  my  defection  is  publicly  reported 
as  a  fact,  because  in  the  little  book  written  for  the  Reformed  Churches,  I 
have  shown  an  increased  degree  of  moderation  ;  and  yet  you  perceive  I  have 
really  inserted  nothing  different  from  what  Luther  constantly  affirms.  But 
because  I  have  employed  no  asperity  of  language,  these  very  acute  men  judge 
that  I  necessarily  differ  from  Luther." 


628        THE   LU  THE  BAN   CONFESSIONS. 

should  have  arisen  in  this  matter,  ordained  by  Christ  Him- 
self to  establish  an  indissoluble  love.  Xever  has  anxiety 
for  any  matter  disturbed  my  heart  more  than  my  anxiety  in 
this.  And  I  have  not  only  myself  considered  what  might  be 
said  for  and  against  this  matter,  but  I  have  also  examined 
the  opinions  of  the  ancients."  ^*  His  faith  was  not  firm, 
hecause  Jus  reason  was  husy  and  halting  in  a  mystery  which 
it  had  not  solved,  and  which  it  never  would  solve. 

At  Marburg,  he  strongly  supported  Luther  against 
Zwingli.  Kot  only  did  Melanchthon"  agree  with  Luther 
in  witliholding  the  hand  of  fellowship  from  Zwingli,  a  fact 
which  is  often  overlooked ;  but  he  wrote  to  a  friend  concern- 
ing the  Zwinglians :  "  They  seemed  to  be  more  trifling  even 
than  they  had  been  before  this  conference.  They  contended 
very  strongly  that  we  should  we  call  them  brethren.  But 
look  at  their  stupidity:  when  they  condemn  us,  they  yet 
desire  to  be  considered  by  us  as  brethren.  We  cannot  give 
our  consent  to  this." 

Yet  when  he  came  under  the  less  gross  rationalistic  influ- 
ence of  Bueer,  and  found  what  seemed  to  be  a  pathway  of 
reason  through  the  Sacrament,  supported  by  some  authority 
of  the  Ancients,  held  by  others  outside  of  his  own  Church, 
and  more  defensible  along  the  line  of  the  lumen  naturale, 
not  all  his  respect  for  pure  doctrine,  nor  all  his  attachment 
and  gratitude  to  Luther  could  keep  him  from  lowering  faith 
to  the  plane  of  scholarly  opinion,  and  from  resting  finally  in 
the  most  reasonable  "  opinion."  This  leads  direct  to  the 
third  weakness  of  the  Melanchthonian  principle,  to  the  great 
and  far-reaching  mistake  in  all  ages,  of  the  milder  ration- 
alism. 

Melanchthon's  fatal  error  lay  in  the  mental  attitude  with 
which  he  approached  the  problem  of  Confession.  He  made 
it  a  mental  problem,  one  in  which  the  adjustment  of  truth 


^  Krotel-Ledderhose,  Life  of  Melanchthon,  p.  82. 
^  Vid.  also  C.  R.,  I.  1098,  llOS  ;   11.  25. 
"Melanchthon  to  Agricola,  Oct.   12th,    1529. 


MELANCHTHONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  629 

played  too  great  a  part.  He  had  fallen  into  the  inveterate 
habit  of  seeking  to  conciliate  differences  in  the  thoughts  and 
actions  of  men,  by  shaving  off  offending  edges  of  doctrinal 
substance.  He  dealt  with  the  confessional  principle,  not 
as  with  a  fountain  of  testimony,  that  springs,  pure,  clear, 
and  inviolate  from  the  bed-rock  of  Scripture;  but  as  an 
apothecary's  compound  to  be  so  skilfully  composed  that  it 
would  be  mediating  between  the  different  convictions,  opin- 
ions and  practices  of  men.  In  this  way  the  intellect  and  the 
conscience  become  confused,  and  the  near  and  pressing  ad- 
vantage of  the  politician  often  seem  of  more  import  than 
the  ultimate  advantage  of  the  pure  confessor.  Therefore 
Melanchthon  continuously  exposed  the  Reformation  and  its 
Confessional  principle  to  the  peril  of  ruin  by  compromise, 
instead  of  bringing  it  bravely  to  do  its  duty  in  open  utterance, 
and  allowing  Providence  to  take  care  of  the  future. 

The  fourth  peculiar  propensity,  on  the  part  of  Melanch- 
thon, which  was  an  instinctive  willingness  to  enter  into 
compromise,  was  due  to  the  combination  of  two  marked 
elements  in  his  nature.  The  first  of  these — the  love  of 
union  **  and  agreement,  and  the  cultivation  of  amiable  rela- 
tions of  concord  with  the  personalities  in  his  present  envi- 
ronment— over-weighed  the  strength  of  his  faith  in  the  exact 
Word,  which  was  conceived  of  subjectively  as  "  doctrine " 
and  was  mediated  by  rational  processes.^' 

The  other  element  that  united  with  the'  rationalistic  tes- 
timony to  interfere  with  untrammeled  and  open  confession, 
was  the  great  timidity,  or  cowardice,  of  Melanchthon — not 
a  personal  fear,  for,  though  he  was  always  trembling  with 
apprehension,  it  was  for  the  fate  of  the  cause  which  he 
represented,  and  because  of  his  great  aversion  to  conflict  and 

^  This  love  arose  in  large  measure  from  one  of  the  fundamental  principles 
or  instincts  discussed  above,  viz.,  the  desire  to  preserve  the  visible  Church 
of  Christ  intact  in  his  own  age,  and  thus  connect  it  in  outward  completeness 
with  preceding  ages. 

8'  This  same  rationalism  within  the  Word,  without  Melanchthon's  love  of 
union,  came  to  full  expression  in  the  dogmaticians  in  the  Sixteenth  Century, 
and  still  comes  to  such  expression  in  the  absolute  syllogisms  underlying  the 
doctrinal  elaborations  of  one  of  the  Lutheran  theological  schools. 


630         TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

his  horror  of  war.  It  was  this  particular  weakness  of  cow- 
ardice, and  lack  of  objective  trust,  in  Melanchthon's  char- 
acter, which  is  traceable  ultimately  to  his  rationalism,  that 
threw  the  unhappy  man,  the  man  of  peace,  who  longed  for 
quietness  and  order,  into  continuous  conflict  within  and 
without,  during  the  whole  of  his  long  period  of  public  activ- 
ity. Unutterably  pitiable  is  it  to  see  a  man  of  this  gentle 
and  lovely  temperament,  thus  constantly  contributory,  by  the 
imprudence  and  failings  of  his  own  virtues,  to  the  growth 
of  the  very  dissensions  and  bitternesses  which  he  hoped  to 
bring  to  an  end. 

How  exceedingly  tragic  that  his  scholastic  habit  of  re- 
weighiug  and  re-formulating  the  conclusions  of  his  reason- 
ing ;  that  such  heavenly  gift  of  expression  in  this  divinely- 
chosen  instrument  of  the  Reformation,  which  ought  to  have 
brought  more  permanent  stability  of  substance  and  sharper 
and  ever  less  subtle  outline  of  form  into  the  Confession  of  the 
Church, — how  tragic  that  such  habit  of  foreboding,  in  such 
gift  of  precision,  sliould  become  so  detrimental  to  the  wit- 
ness of  God's  truth :  as  happens  with  men  who  weigh  and  re- 
weigh  all  things  with  their  reason  so  continuously  that  di- 
vinely-wrought faith  in  the  AYord  seems  secondary ! 

Great  masters  of  form  often  come  to  consider  it  as  lawful 
to  touch  the  integer  of  substance,  and  to  smooth  down  super- 
fluities and  excrescences,  as  they  would  say,  so  that  the  truth 
may  be  more  acceptable  to  the  undorstandiug;  and  thus — 
to  change  the  figure — })()Iis]i  away  the  very  pivots,  so  small 
and  yet  so  essential,  upon  which  the  sphere  of  doctrine  bears 
down  upon  tlie  bed-rock  of  its  foundation,  and  set  the  ball 
of  teaching  a-rolling  down  an  endless  groove  of  change. 

How  tragic  that  this  restless  spirit  of  change,  so  charac- 
teristic of  Protestantism  and  so  destructive  of  the  only  prem- 
ises upon  which  Protestantism  can  permanently  stand,  should 
have  entered,  as  a  new,  separate,  and  minor,  but  persistent 
principle,  so  early,  and  for  years  so  unobservedly,  into  the 
career  of  the  Evauirclical  Reformation ! 


MELANCHTHONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  631 

Tims,  in  the  fifth  place,  all  the  qualities — aud  some  of 
them,  in  their  paradox,  e.  g.,  his  love  of  change  (rational), 
and  his  fear  of  change  (historical)  ;  his  desire  to  be  inde- 
pendent as  a  teacher  and  his  love  of  dependence  on  author- 
ity; his  wish  to  win  those  without,  which  led  him  to  take  the 
risk  of  offending  those  within, — are  contributory  to  the 
most  marked  and  unfailing  instinct  of  Melanchthon,  viz., 
the  desire  for  union.  It  is  the  weaker,  the  secondary,  the 
unsatisfied,  the  longing  and  changing  nature  that  needs  and 
is  driven  to  seek  union. 

The  instinct  of  union  was  fundamental  in  Melauchrhou's 
nature.  It  sprang  not  simply  from  the  desire  for  immedi- 
ate concord,  and  from  the  wish  to  avoid  strife,  which  was 
a  strong  trait  in  him,  but  also  from  the  still  greater  desire 
on  his  part  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  visible  church.  He 
strove  most  valiantly  in  his  own  way  to  prevent  the  visible 
church  from  going  to  pieces.  On  the  one  side  he  held  on 
to  the  Roman  Church  with  almost  inconceivable  fidelity, 
and  on  the  other  side  he  reached  out  toward  the  Calvinistic 
Church  with  tenacity,  though  he  consistently  and  continu- 
ously hated  Zwinglianism  (with  which  much  modern  Pro- 
testantism is  to  be  compared),  and  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  To  this  desperate  effort  of  Melanchthon,  to  keep  the 
Christian  Church  united  in  a  visible  unity,  many  of  his  ap- 
parent sacrifices  of  principle  in  ambiguous  formulas,  much 
of  his  waste  of  energy,  and  his  most  serious  troubles  are  due. 
Down  to  the  very  last,  CA'en  subsequent  to  the  Convention 
of  Worms  in  1557,  he  hoped  for  a  reconciling  union  of  the 
visible  Church. 

This  consistent  and  continuous  unionistic  effort  of  his 
was  doomed  to  fail.  He  conciliated  the  Romanists,  but  of- 
fended the  Protestants  in  his  gentle  and  generally  admirable 
Saxon  Confession,  in  1527.  He  was  obliged  to  change  his 
own  position  at  the  Diet  of  Spires  in  1529.  He  came  near 
overturning  the  whole  Protestant  foundation  by  his  conces- 
sions to  Rome  in  connection  with  the  Confession  at  Augs- 


632        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

burg  in  1530.  In  his  earlier  friendship  with  Oecolampa- 
dins  and  his  later  friendship  with  Bucer,  the  great  mediating 
theologian,  he  brought  harm  and  discord  into  Lutheranism, 
and  yet  did  not  unite  even  the  looser  and  more  liberal 
Lutheran  elements  together  organically  with  Calvinism,  in  the 
most  prominent  point  of  separation,  viz.,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Melanchthon's  efforts  toward  unionism  on 
this  doctrine  were  not  to  develop  a  theory  of  his  own,  but  to 
find  a  common  basis  for  all  evangelical  Christians  (in  wliich 
the  Zwinglians  were  however  excluded),  who  held  fast  to  the 
real  objective  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  as  opposed 
to  the  Supper  as  a  memoria  hominis  mortui,  and  a  mark 
merely  of  human  fellowship  (which  Melanchthon  always 
continued  to  regard  as  Zwingli's  view).  Melanchthon  had 
no  idea  either  of  drawing  all  Protestant  sects  more  closely 
together,  or  of  having  fellowship  in  the  Lord's  Supper  with 
those  who  hold  it  as  a  mere  memorial. 

But  he  supposed  it  possible  to  preserve  church  unity  by  an 
agreement  of  the  more  conservative  Protestants,  such  as 
was  attained  later  through  the  mediation  of  Bucer  and  his 
own.  agreement  with  the  Swiss  Eeformation  through  the 
Wittenberg  Concord.  Conjunctionem  nostrarum  ecclesior 
rum  retineri  volui  et  domesiica  quaedam  vulnera  tegi* 

Both  Calvin  and  ]\Ielanchthon  made  the  mediaeval  mis- 
take of  presuming  that  such  concord  could  be  arranged  by 
formulas  of  union,  whose  words  would  cover  up  minor  dif- 
ferences and  limit  unnecessary  disputes,  and  thus  preserve 
the  unity  of  the  true  doctrine.  It  would  not  however  be 
just  to  conclude,  much  as  the  words  of  the  two  men  seem  at 
times  to  indicate  the  fact,  that  Melanchthon  could  find  him- 
self in  hearty  and  permanent  agreement  with  the  formulas 
of  Calvin,  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  probably 
never  used  them." 

The  sixth  point  in  our  analysis  of  Melanchthon's  prin- 


*o  C.  R.,  XXI,   346. 

"  Yet  cp.  Schaff  in  loco. 


ME  LAN  CUT  LION  I  AN   PRINCIPLE.  G33 

ciple  and  character  brings  us  to  his  trait  of  diplomacy.  Ts 
it  any  wonder  that  a  mind  that  worked  by  reason  rather  than 
rested  in  faith  alone ;  that  believed  it  possible  to  eliminate 
differences  by  the  introduction  of  harmonic  formulas;  that 
longed  for  outside  attaclmients,  and  feared  the  public  conse- 
quence of  isolation,  sliould,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  take 
a  hand  in  the  diplomacy  of  the  day  to  bring  about  in  Church 
affairs  that  which  he  so  ardently  desired?  Thus,  while 
Luther  remains  the  mighty  preacher,  and  pins  liis  whole 
faith  to  the  Word,  ]\Ielanclithon  becomes  the  ecclesiastic,  and 
assists  in  putting  the  Lord's  work  on  its  feet  by  his  own 
schemes  and  plans. 

Kolde,  in  several  of  the  preceding  Cliapters,"'  has  made 
clear  how,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  while  Briick  and  the 
Elector  proved  themselves  to  be  the  real  confessors,  Mel- 
anchthon  was  engaged  in  politics.  His  conduct  on  this 
occasion  seems  incomprehensible:  tliat  he  should  have  con- 
tinued in  sucli  a  guileless  faith  in  tlie  open-mindedness  of 
the  Spanish  Emperor — that,  with  all  his  experience  witli 
Rome  at  previous  Diets  and  Conventions,  he  should  still 
trust  the  Papal  legate — that  he  should  enter  into  and  carry 
on  negotiations  of  greatest  political  import,  without  any 
commission  from  the  Elector,  whose  servant  he  was ;  and 
without  any  consultation  with  the  Elector's  chancellor,  who 
was  the  proper  official  advisor — and  that  he  should  be  wil- 
ling to  modify  the  theological  outcome  without  consulting 
Luther,  or  the  other  theologians,  in  witness  of  which  is  his 
persistent  silence  toward  Luther  during  the  period  in  which 
he  was  engaged  with  negotiations  with  the  Papal  legate — and 
that  he  should  take  into  his  own  hands  the  settlement  of  the 
future  of  Protestantism,  in  a  way  different  from  that  pro- 
jected and  planned  by  the  body  of  advisers ;  and  thus  neglect 
the  proper  work,  viz.,  the  completion  of  the  Confession  of 
the  Evangelical  Faith,  until  the  last  moment,  when  there 
was  barely  time  left  to  make  a  respectable  copy  of  the  man- 


»*•   XY  and  XVI. 


634        THE   LUTHERAN   COSFESSIOXS. 

uscript, — are,  each  and  all,  testimony  and  evidence  of  the 
peculiar  and  unfortunate  Melanchtbonian  method,  which 
brought  disastrous  results  to  the  Reformation. 

Xot  only  during  the  days  preceding  the  Confession  at 
Augsburg,  but  also  during  the  long  Summer  of  1530,  when 
weary  and  fruitless  negotiations  were  being  held  with  the 
Roman  Pope  on  the  basis  of  the  Confession,  which  culmi- 
nated, on  the  one  side,  in  the  Romish  Confutation,  and  on 
the  other,  in  Melanchthon's  glorious  Apology;  Melanch- 
thon's  vain  hopes  for  peace  and  his  willingness  to  concede 
parts  of  confessional  substance,  or,  at  least,  to  veil  them  in 
a  formula  of  agreement  which  represented  verbal  harmony, 
but  covered  actual  difference,  were  in  evidence. 

The  seventh  and  last  characteristic  of  jMelanchthon's  na- 
ture was  his  dreadful  fear  and  trembling  (already  alluded 
to  under  point  four  above),  and  his  lack  of  trust  and  confi- 
dence, in  the  crises  of  the  Church  through  which  he  passed. 
"We  recall  his  anxiety  and  helplessness  at  Wittenberg  when 
the  fanatics  appeared  during  the  absence  of  Luther.  Worry 
and  care  seem  never  to  have  lifted  their  clouds  from  his  soul. 
The  result  of  the  Diet  of  Spires,  in  1529,  which  insisted  on 
the  enforcement  of  the  edict  of  Worms,  filled  the  spirit  of 
Melanchthon  with  dismay.  He  trembled  for  the  safety  of 
the  evangelical  cause,  and  felt  that  a  more  conciliatory 
course  would  have  avoided  the  dire  result.  "  Perhaps  the 
excessive  anxiety  which  took  possession  of  him  may  account 
for  the  unjust  censure  which  he  passed  upon  tlie  conduct  of 
the  Lutheran  princes  in  this  Diet.  lie  vainly  imagined  that 
the  Roman  Catholics  would  not  have  passed  the  obnoxious 
decree  at  all,  or  would  have  annulled  it  again,  if  some  minor 
and  unessential  points  had  been  conceded  to  them.  But  he 
credited  the  Roman  Catholics  with  good  intentions  which 
they  never  possessed.  They  were  bent  on  crushing  out  the 
Reformation.  The  princes  judged  far  more  correctly  than 
he  of  tlio  temper  and  spirit  of  their  foes,  and  of  the  course 
which  liud  To  be  pursued  in  dealing  with  them.      Yet  it  must 


MELANCnniONIAN   PRINCIPLE.  G35 

be  said  to  Melanchtbon's  credit  tliat  after  the  decree  of  the 
Diet  was  passed,  he  was  as  mnch  opposed  as  any  one  to  yield- 
ing obedience  to  its  unholy  demands,  and  that  he  advised, 
as  a  last  resort,  the  presentation  of  a  formal  protest  against 
the  resolution  of  the  Diet. 

"Accordingly,  on  April  15th,  1529,  the  Lutherans  pre- 
sented tlieir  celebrated  Protest  (written  by  ALelanchthon  him- 
self) and  Ap]X'al.  On  the  sixth  of  ^lay,  Melanchthon  ar- 
rived again  at  Wittenberg.  Both  he  and  Lnther  expected 
that  a  religious  war  would  follow.  ^Melanchthon  was  so 
troubled  at  the  prospect  that  Luther  wrote:  'Philip  worries 
himself  so  much  about  the  Church  and  the  general  welfare, 
that  he  is  injuring  his  health.'  "  " 

The  same  incubus  followed  Melanchthon  to  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg,  and  rendered  him  miserable  and  hopeless  during 
the  greater  part  of  that  memorable  Spring  and  Summer.  lie 
toiled  incessantly,  but  always  in  fear  and  trembling  and  on 
the  edge  of  despair.  AVe  have  described  his  vain  hopes,  and 
his  schemes  to  avert  disaster,  and  their  failure  elsewhere. 
But  most  graphically  does  his  weakness  and  misery  come 
out  in  his  correspondence  with  Luther  during  that  Summer. 
Luther  was  being  held  at  Coburg.  lie  was  like  a  lion  in 
the  cage,  and  comparatively  little  information  reached  him 
as  to  doings  in  Augsburg.  Melanchthon's  plan  was  to  patch 
up  a  peace  which  he  knew  Luther  would  frown  upon,  and 
he  stopped  writing  to  Luther  and  then  complained  that 
Luther  did  not  write  to  him. 

After  passing  the  !Melanchthonian  principle  and  tempera- 
ment under  such  searching  review,  we  cannot  avoid  asking 
the  question,  Is  this  the  proper  principle  and  temper  for 
the  Lutheran  Church  to  assume  in  our  day  ?  AYas  the  ^lel- 
anchthonianism  of  the  sixteenth  century,  or  of  the  eighteenth 
century  in  Europe,  or  that  of  the  nineteenth  century  in 
Europe  or  in  America,  promotive  of  the  peace,  the  strength. 


*=  stump.  Life  of  Melanchthon,  p.   89. 


636        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  the  life  of  the  church  ?  In  the  sixteenth  century,  it,  first, 
bad  its  trial,  and,  after  a  generation,  brought  the  church  to 
the  verge  of  shipwreck.  We  believe  it  has  done  this  in  later 
days,  and  will  always  do  so.  The  Melanchthonian  principle 
left  to  itself  will  merge  a  weak  Lutheranism  into  a  common 
Protestantism,  which  the  Lutheran  essence  will  not  leaven, 
but  in  which  it  will,  as  Schaff  intimates,  be  swallowed  up  of 
the  Eeformed  principle.  The  operation  of  this  principle 
in  the  sixteenth  century  Schaff  describes  as  follows: — 

"  The  Melanchthonians  .  .  .  maintained,  with  less  force 
of  will  and  conviction,  but  with  more  liberality  and  catho- 
licity of  spirit,  the  right  of  progressive  development  in  the- 
ology, and  sought  to  enlarge  the  doctrinal  basis  of  Luther- 
anism for  a  final  reconciliation  of  Christendom,  or  at  least 
for  a  union  of  the  evangelical  churches."  " 

Even  the  genially  discriminative  Kahnis  has  said, 
"  There  have  been  those  who  lamented  that  it  was  not  con- 
ceded to  Philippism  to  speak  the  final  word.  But  before  a 
tendency  can  impart  character,  it  must  have  character,  and 
this  was  wanting  in  Philippism.  ISTothing  but  a  positive 
Lutheranism  had  the  theological  potencies,  the  firmness  and 
definiteness  of  doctrine,  the  energy  of  witness,  and  principles 
on  which  established  Churches  alone  can  rest,  which  was  the 
problem  to  be  solved."  " 


"  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,   p.   267. 
**  Kahnis,  Innere  Gang.,  I,  pp.  54,  55. 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE   KEED  OF  A  COXCOEDIA  REALIZED,   A^Tt 
ITS  ORIGIN  ATTEMPTED. 

Four  Periods  of  Development — The  Variata  Insufficient — The  Situation  1560- 
1576 — The  Statements  of  Andrete  in  1569 — The  Six  Sermons  sent  to  Chemnitz 
in  1573 — The  Commission  of  Augustus — The  Torgau  Book — The  Bergen 
Book — The  Calvinistic  Protests. 

LOOKIXG  backward,  from  that  point  in  the  history 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century  to  which  we  now  have  at- 
tained, we  find  the  Lutheran  Confession  *  to  have  passed 
throngh  four  periods  of  development.  The  first  period  com- 
prises its  birth  and  youth,  1517-1530.  The  second  period 
embraces  the  years  in  which  the  Confession  was  publicly  es- 
tablished and  regularly  taught  to  the  rising  generation  as  a 
system  of  doctrine,  1530-15-16.  The  third  period  includes 
those  dark  years  between  the  death  of  Luther  (and  the  Leip- 
zig Interim)  and  the  Peace  of  Augsburg,  during  which  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  suftered  much  from  oppression,  curtail- 
ment and  schism  (1546-1555).  And  the  fourth  period  rep- 
resents the  results  of  schism  in  separating  and  widening  the 
breach  between  the  external  units,  and  embraces  the  unsuc- 
cessful Diets  of  the  Princes,  and  the  introduction  of  the 
Corpora  Doctrinae,  whose  common  Confession  was  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Faith  (1555-1560-1567). 

The  events  from  1555  to  the  death  of  Melanchthon  have 


*  i.   e.,   the   Catholic   Confession   witli   the   errors   of   Rome   expurgated. 

G37 
44 


638         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

already  been  treated.  Those  from  1560  to  1567  and  later, 
the  rise  of  the  Corpora  Docirlnae,  the  subsidence  of  the  Ma- 
joristic,  Synergistic  and  Osiandrian  Controversies,  and  other 
movements,  will  be  alluded  to  and  discussed  in  various  sub- 
sequent chapters  in  their  relation  to  our  examination  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

The  true  Lutherans  who  remained  steadfast  throughout 
these  years  of  darkness,  and  who  were  not  so  narrow  and  so 
embittered  as  to  prefer  their  own  little  party  or  their  own 
personal  liberty,  and  a  continuance  in  conflict,  to  a  knitting 
together  of  the  whole  evangelical  Church  of  the  clear 
Augsburg  Confession  upon  its  sound,  complete,  normal  and 
original  basis ;  gradually  came  to  the  conclusion,  in  view  of 
the  shadows,  obscurities  and  uncertainties  that  had  gathered 
about  the  Lutheran  Confession  during  the  generation  of 
Melanchthonian  activity,  because  it  was  Variate,  and  because 
of  the  strains  imposed  upon  it  and  the  liberties  taken  in 
diverse  development,  that  the  only  way  to  bring  the  Church 
back  to  the  whole  Faith,  and  anchor  it  on  a  truly  catholic 
basis,  able  to  meet  the  catholic  claim  of  Rome,  was  to  re- 
affirm all  the  earlier  Confessions  of  the  Catholic  Christian 
Faith,  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to  unfold  the  full 
Faith  of  these  Confessions  more  ^'ully  under  the  guidance  of 
God's  "Word  at  any  points  which  had  become  obscured  and 
contorted  during  this  period. 

The  first  of  the  theologians  to  attempt  this  work  was  a 
pupil  of  John  Brentz,  one  of  the  original  Confessors  and  pro- 
fessor of  Theology  of  Tuebingen.^  In  1569  he  wrote  a 
Confession  in  five  statements,'  one  on  Justification,  one  on 
Good  Works,  one  on  Free  Will,  one  on  Adiaphora,  and  one 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  each  of  which  had  been  the  subject 
of  a  controversy,  and  doctrines  of  which  had  been  obscured ; 
and  sent  them  around  to  other  theologians  in  other  parts  of 
Germany,    asking   whether   these    statements   would   not   be 


*  For  a  fuller  account  of  Andrea",  v-.d.  chap  XXX. 
"  For  title,  etc.,  vid.   ib., 


ORIGIN   OF   CONCORDIA.  639 

suitable  as  a  Confession,  to  set  Lutheran  doctrine  in  the 
clear,  and  bring  peace  to  the  troubled  Church. 

Many  theologians  were  ready  to  accept  these  statements 
of  Andreae,  but  some  saw  that  they  were  not  sufficiently  dis- 
tinctive and  complete,  and  that  they  probably  would  be  sub- 
scribed by  men  who  would  continue  to  hold  false  views  pri- 
vately, but  who  would  recognize  the  prudence  of  outwardly 
accepting  the  new  Confession/  In  journeying  through  north 
Germany,  Andreae  happened  to  meet  the  theologian  Chem- 
nitz, who  was  superintendent  in  Braunschweig,  of  whom  the 
Romanists  later  said,  *'  Yon  Lutherans  have  had  two  Mar- 
tins (Martin  Luther  and  Martin  Chemnitz)  ;  if  the  second 
one  had  not  come,  the  first  one  would  not  have  remained 
standing." 

As  a  result  of  the  interview  between  Andreae  and  Chem- 
nitz, Chemnitz  drew  up  and  circulated  a  form  of  Confession 
of  those  articles  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  that  had  been 
falsified.     This  was  to  be  added  to  the  Confession  of  Luther. 

Following  this,  in  1573,  Andreae  sent  Chemnitz  six  ser- 
mons concerning  the  divisions  that  had  arisen  in  the  Church 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  between  1548  and  1573  ;  and  sub- 
sequently prepared  the  eleven  Swabian  articles,  which  were 
endorsed  in  Wiirttemberg,  and  wliicli  Chemnitz  and  Chy- 
traeus  corrected  and  worked  over.'  Then  the  eyes  of  the 
Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony  were  opened,  and  he  called  a 
Conference  of  twelve  theologians,  praying  that  the  Lord 
would  enlighten  their  hearts  with  his  Spirit,  and  thus  bring 
them  to  the  truth,  and  to  godly  unity. 

The  decision  of  this  Conference  was,  first,  that  all  bad  feel- 
ings arising  in  past  controversies  should  be  forgiven  and  for- 
gotten ;  second,  that  no  one  was  bound  any  longer  to  the  Cor- 
pus Doctrinae  of  Melauchthon ;  third,  tliat  men  like  Chem- 
nitz,   Andreae   and    Chvtraeus   should   be    commissioned   to 


*  Yid.    chap.    XXX. 

'^  For    a    fuller   account    of   the   Swabian    Concordia    and    what    followed,    vid. 
chap.  XXVI. 


640         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

compose  an  explanation  of  all  doctrines  that  had  arisen,  which 
were  contrary  to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

This  commission  after  much  deliberation  produced  the 
Torgau  Book,  which  became  the  Bergen  Book,  or  Formula 
of  Concord,  Chemnitz,  who  had  been  doubtful  of  the  re- 
sult, said  at  the  end  of  the  deliberations,  that  the  whole  mat- 
ter seemed  to  him  like  a  dream,  since  everything  that  had 
happened  had  been  so  far  above  his  hope  and  expectation ; 
and  the  news  went  throughout  all  Germany  that,  after  so 
long  a  time,  the  confusion  and  division  had  given  way  to 
unity. 

As  a  result  of  these  tidings  the  Elector  of  Saxony  received 
many  letters  of  protest  from  Calvinistic  princes  and  from 
Crypto-Calvinistic  sources;  and  even  Queen  Elizabeth  of 
England  sent  over  a  deputation  in  the  interests  of  Calvinism 
not  to  allow  this  book  to  be  promulgated.  Many  Reformed 
proposed  that  a  common  Reformed  Confession  should  be  set 
up  over  against  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  that  the  Re- 
formed should  withdraw  from  their  acceptance  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession;  but  Ursinus,  the  author  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  wrote  to  Beza  to  the  effect  that  it  would  be 
better  to  continue  to  accept  the  Augsbuijg  Confession  (and 
to  agitate  against  the  Formula). 

Thus  the  Formula  originated.  It  came  forth  after  many 
efforts,  as  the  work  of  a  larger  number  of  men,  of  more  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  than  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 

It  was  the  triumph  of  Luther  over  Eck  and  Erasmus, 
of  Protestantism  in  stable  equilibrium  over  Protestantism  in 
strife,  of  Faith  over  reason,  of  divine  Reality  over  the  human 
idea,  of  Grace  over  legality,  of  consistency  over  expediency, 
of  honesty  over  evasion,  of  principle  over  politics,  of  the 
golden  mean  over  its  two  extremes,  of  Christ  in  His  real 
presence  over  Christ's  image  in  a  spiritual  imagination,  of 
the  Gospel  as  a  power,  over  the  gospel  as  a  philosophical 
doctrine. 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE     FORMULA     OF     COXCORD.— ITS     ORIGIN, 

BASED     ON     KOLDE'S     IXTRODUCTIOX 

AND    OX^   THE    ARTICLE    ON    THE 

F0R:\[ULA  IX  HAUCK. 

The  Six  Controversies  and  Points  at  Issue — The  Pliant  and  Scholastic  Nature  of 
Melanchthon — The  Rise  of  Calvinism — The  Disruption  of  the  Schmalkald 
League  and  the  Helplessness  of  the  Protestants — The  Corpora  Doctrinae — The 
Efforts  of  Andreae — The  Effort  of  Chemnitz  and  Duke  Julius — The  Effort  of 
Augustus — The  Swabian  Concordia  sent  to  Augustus  by  Julius,  and  the  Maul- 
bronn-Formula  sent  by  the  South  Germans — Recast  into  the  Torgian  Formula 
and  the  Bergen  Book — The  Subscription  to  the  Formula, 

AXEW  Confession  was  a  historical  necessity.  There 
was  only  this  one  alternative,  either  to  let  the  division 
and  confusion  remain  which  resulted  from  the  six  contro- 
versies concerning  the  Interim  and  Adiaphora,  Major  and 
his  doctrine  of  Good  Works,  the  Antinomia,  Westphal  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  Christology,  Osiander  and  his  doc- 
trine of  Justification,  and  S\Tiergism  with  Pfeffinger  on  the 
one  extreme  and  Flacius  on  the  other ;  or  to  bring  these  con- 
troversies to  an  end  by  a  Confessional  decision  as  to  the  dif- 
ferences of  doctrine.  With  this  naturally  came  the  further 
necessity  of  rendering  the  Confessional  foundation  sure  by 
means  of  a  common  Corpus  Doctrinae. 

THE  INNER  AND  OUTER  CAUSES  OF  THE  CONTROVERSIES. 

We  shall  understand  the  various  efforts  made  toward  this 

641 


642         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

final  end,  and  the  result  itself,  the  Formula  of  Concord,  if 
we  first  of  all  point  out  the  external  and  internal  causes  of 
the  controversies  and  the  resulting  confusion.  In  reality 
the  causes  were  not  only,  as  is  often  affirmed,  the  theological 
divergencies  of  Melanchthon  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  of  grace,  of  the  church,  of  the  ecclesiastical  rights 
of  the  government,  etc.,  or  his  pliant  nature  which  constantly 
yielded  to  prevailing  conditions,  and  called  forth  the  opposi- 
tion of  those  who  had  long  remarked  these  things  and  now 
arose  with  Luther's  word  against  the  Philippists.  The  final 
causes  lie  much  deeper  and  penetrate  to  the  difference  be- 
tween faith,  divinely  born ;  and  trutli,  humanly  grasped,  as 
ultimate  sources  of  spiritual  life. 

Luther  was  universally  conceded  to  be  the  hero  of  the 
Evangelical  faith;  but  IMelanchthon,  the  schoolman,  was  the 
preceptor  of  the  church  that  was  becoming  evangelical.  In 
liis  school  the  gos})el  became  the  doctrlna  evangelii.  lie 
coined  the  evangelical  dogma,  and  also  stated  it,  many  times 
changing  formulation  to  no  small  degree  for  the  sake  of 
pers])icuity,  and  it  was  only  later  that  this  habit  was  found 
to  inrolre  many  conlradic lions.  And  (this  is  a  second  im- 
portant point),  under  his  influence  the  conduct  of  theologi- 
cal science  had  entered  upon  pathways  that  were  destined 
to  heconie  disastrous.  Above  all  else,  the  regular  disputa- 
tious that  had  been  resumed  in  ^Yittenbcrg  in  15-33  in- 
evitably led  to  a  new  scholasticism  and  actually  fostered 
the  tendency  to  constantly  originate  now  theories  by  making 
finer  and  ever  finer  distinctions.  There  is  a  peculiar  trag- 
edy in  the  fact  that  Mclnnchthon  himself  who  was  always 
averse  to  such  acuteness  of  doctrinal  statement,  did,  against 
his  own  will  and  hy  Jiis  own  method,  further  the  tendency 
to  spin  out  a  theological  thought  to  its  very  last  consequences. 

When  Luther  died,  Melanchthon  became  in  reality  the 
recognized  leader.  What  we  actually  know,  gives  us  no  rea- 
son to  assume  that  the  number  of  his  opponents,  or  even  of 
those  who  regarded  his  tlicological  development  with  appre- 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   FORMULA.  643 

hension,  was  at  all  considerable.  But  his  weak  conduct  in 
the  Interim  matter  and  the  controversies  arising  therefrom, 
changed  the  entire  state  of  affairs.  Faith  in  the  orthodoxy 
of  Wittenberg  was  shaken  in  wide  circles,  and,  while  Luther 
was  now  emphatically  trumped  out  against  Melanchthon, 
others,  too,  Avho  heretofore  had  kept  in  the  background, 
thought  the  time  had  arrived  for  them  to  come  forth  with 
their  own  private  opinions.  Among  these  the  foremost  was 
Andrew  Osiander. 

To  this  must  be  added  the  gradual  rise  of  the  Highland 
"  Eichtung,"  which  became  more  independent  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Calvin,  deepened,  won  great  regions  of  the  West 
and  a  considerable  number  of  Melanchthonians  as  adherents, 
and  finally  carried  the  controversy  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper  into  the  very  mother-country  of  the  Reformation. 
This  in  the  last  instance  was  to  no  small  degree  conditioned 
by  political  circumstances. 

When  the  Schmalkald  League  was  disrupted,  a  bond  of 
ecclesiastical  union  of  no  small  importance  had  been  sev-- 
ered.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  from  the  time  of  the 
Interim,  to  which  every  little  state  church  accommodated 
itself  in  its  own  way,  and  after  its  revocation,  in  the  read- 
justment to  evangelical  forms  of  worship  and  faith,  the 
specific  system  of  state  churches  really  had  its  actual  begin- 
ning. Thus  at  the  same  time  the  self-consciousness  of  the 
state  clergy  gi'ew  stronger  and  with  it  the  consciousness  of  the 
right  to  possess  an  individual  opinion,  which  of  course  must 
be  the  right  one.  And  the  strife  between  the  universities  of 
Jena  and  Wittenberg,  which  degenerated  into  actual  hatred, 
found  increasing  nourishment  in  the  contention  between  the 
two  Saxon  lines. 

These  are  the  internal  and  external  conditions  of  the 
theological  controversies,  and  in  part,  even  of  the  forms  in 
which  they  were  manifested.  As  old  as  these  causes  are  the 
attempts  to  overcome  them.  They  became  more  definite 
and  more  general   after   tl  e   year   1555.     In   the   religious 


644        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

peace  of  Augsburg,  the  Augustana  had  become  the  charter 
of  German  Protestantism,  a  real  symbol.  Now  the  question 
arose  as  to  which  of  the  opposing  parties  had  a  right  to  appeal 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  thereby  possess  a  claim  to 
the  peace  of  the  realm.  This  called  forth  the  endeavor  of  the 
princes,  to  secure  the  unity  of  Protestantism  and  its  char- 
tered existence  in  some  form,  by  acknowledging  the  Augus- 
tana. 


THE    EARLIEST    EFFORTS    OF    THE    TIIE0L0GIA:XS    TO    SECURE 

COXCORD. 

Already  in  1556,  Flacius  himself  had  made  his  "  Linde 
Vorschliige,"  rejecting  the  teachings  of  Zwingli,  Osiander 
and  Major,  and  demanding  that  those  in  error  should  openly 
retract  the  same :  "  Discerning  and  God-fearing  people,  to 
whom  religion  and  pure  doctrine  arc  an  earnest  matter,  will 
understand  that  it  is  necessary  to  act  differently  in  matters 
of  faith  than  we  do  in  civil  transactions,  where  one  often 
makes  amnesty,  that  is,  causes  errors  to  cease  by  forgetting 
them;  by  letting  them  go,  and  that  by  no  other  milder  means 
can  the  divisions  in  the  churches  be  silenced  and  brought  to 
an  end." 

The  next  year  Flacius  again  suggested  mediation  between 
Melanchthon  and  himself.  Melanchtlion  set  up  as  condi- 
tions a  being  united  on  the  whole  corpus  doctrinae,  and  an 
obligation  to  ignore  the  controversy  concerning  the  adia- 
phora;  the  unity  was  to  be  a  unity  of  the  confession:  "  et 
simus  conjuncti  ad  defensionem  verare  doctrinae  juxta  sym- 
bola  et  certain  confessionem."  Tlie  issue  of  the  contro- 
versy is  here .  foretold  almost  proplu^tieally.  The  Flacians 
adhered  to  the  demand  of  an  open  declaration  concerning 
the  adiaphora  and  the  theses  of  ]\Iajor.  As  the  rule  of  the 
consensus  they  set  the  Schmalkald  Articles  in  addition  to  the 
Augustana  and  its  Apology.  These  were  all  impossible  in 
that  they  tauglit  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's   Supper. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   FOBMULA.  645 

Flaciiis  passed  a  sleepless  niglit  concerning  the  nnrepentance 
of  Melanehthon,  but  he  thought  the  dog  would  have  to  bark 
sufHciently  long  to  wake  up  the  fox. 

The  religious  Gespriich  at  Worms  brought  the  differences 
to  a  head.  The  Flacians  questioned  the  right  of  the  Phil- 
ippists  to  call  upon  the  Augustana.  The  princes  attempted 
to  restore  peace  at  the  Frankfurt  Recess,  through  iMolanch- 
thon's  Opinion,  which  finds  the  pure  doctrine  in  the  three 
chief  symbols,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Apology; 
and  in  which  ]\Ielanchthonian  formulas  are  used  in  reference 
to  the  new  obedience  and  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Unity  was 
to  be  obtained  by  means  of  a  censor,  who  should  suppress  all 
religious  writings  "  not  found  safe  by  the  regularly  ap- 
pointed censor  in  accordance  with  the  true  [Melanchthonian] 
confession  of  faith."  The  Flacians  declared  this  was  "  bind- 
ing the  mouth  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  idea  of  securing  unity  by  a  General  Evangelical 
Synod  was  dropped,  as  new  controversies  were  feared.  For, 
as.Brentz  said,  there  was  no  Elector  John  the  Constant,  and 
no  Luther,  living  any  longer.  Against  the  Frankfurt  Re- 
cess, the  Weimar  Confutation  condemned  Philippism  (1559), 
but  the  Diet  of  Princes  at  Xaumburg  (1561)  confirmed  the 
Frankfurt  Recess.  The  Schmalkald  Articles  were  not  in- 
cluded by  it  among  the  s^^ubols,  and  the  great  speaker  was 
the  Calvinistic  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate.  Because 
this  Diet  evaded  a  clear  Confession  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  latter  was  at  once  brought  into  prominence  as  an 
additional  subject  of  conflict.  Many  who  had  been  neutral, 
now  joined  the  Gnesio-Lutherans,  believing  Luther's  doc- 
trine of  the  sacrament  in  danger. 

And  at  this  point  they  realized  that  the  Augustana  in 
itself  did  not  offer  a  sufficient  confessional  basis.  A  Con- 
vention at  Liineburg  asked  for  a  Corpus  Doctrinae  that,  in 
addition  to  the  Augustana,  should  also  include  the  Apology, 
the  Schmalkald  Articles,  Luther's  Catechism,  and  his  re- 
maining writings;  and  that  Osiandrists,  the  Majoristfe,  the 


646         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Sacramentarians,  the  Adiaphorists,  and  the  Synergists  should 
he  condemned.  This  was  still  in  1561.  In  Lower  Saxony, 
especially,  great  stress  was  laid  upon  Luther's  orthodoxy 
and  upon  the  right  doctrine  of  tlie  Lord's  Supper. 

And  just  at  this  time  John  Frederick  resolved  to  break 
with  the  radical  Flacians.  Flacius  and  Wigand  were  de- 
posed and  exiled.  This  was  in  the  end  of  1561.  This  new 
turn  of  affairs,  while  causing  the  Gnesio-Lutheran  ideas  no 
longer  to  be  the  matter  of  a  single  theological  party,  brought 
wide  recognition  for  them  throughout  the  church. 

The  Reformed  Church  also  showed  its  object  far  more 
clearly.  Frederick  III.  went  over  to  Calvinism  entirely, 
and  adopted  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  1563.  Electoral 
Saxony  had  adopted  the  Melanchthonian  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Christianne.  It  also  wa^^  adopted  in  ITesse  and  Pomerania, 
and  a  number  of  other  territorial  churches. 

But  in  the  strictly  Lutheran  countries  and  cities  nothing 
iMelanchthouian  except  the  Augustana  and  the  Apology  was 
adopted.  The  Corpus  Doctrinae  of  each  contained  the  writ- 
ings of  Luther.  Tims  each  territory  now  had  its  norm  of 
doctrine.  But  the  problem  was  to  establish  a  common  Cor- 
pus Doctrinae  for  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  of  Germany. 
This  problem  was  solved  through  the  Book  of  Concord.  The 
Corpus  Doctrinae  of  each  territory  issued  finally  into  the 
Book  of  Concord. 

For  the  single  territorial  confessions  could  not  dispose  of 
the  old  conflicts  brought  on  by  the  Philippistic  teachings. 
The  Gnesio-Lutherans  were  recalled  to  Ducal-Saxony,  and 
a  hot  conflict  arose  with  Electoral  Saxony  on  the  old  sub- 
jects. The  Colloquium  at  Altenburg,  continuing  from  Oc- 
tober, 1568,  to  the  Spring  of  1569,  could  not  restore  a  good 
understanding.  Everyone  recognized  the  ruinous  conse- 
quences of  conflict,  and  though  efforts  to  reconcile  were  made, 
they  did  not  succeed.  There  was  only  one  way  to  restore 
peace.  The  source  of  conflict  must  be  considered,  and  a 
solution  that  w^ould  satisfy  must  be  sought.     In  the  nature 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   FORMULA.  647 

of  the  case  this  could  only  occur  by  means  of  theological  for- 
mulas, and  it  could  only  be  executed  by  having  the  territorial 
churches  recognize  these  formulas.  It  is  this  fact  which 
gave  the  Formula  of  Concord  its  outer  form,  and  which  de- 
termined its  territorial  mode  of  subscription. 

The  Xaumburg  Diet  of  Princes  in  1501  and  its  immedi- 
ate results,  had  revealed  how  unsuccessful  such  attempts 
were.  Every  political  organism  now  went  its  own  way. 
Tlie  introduction  by  tlie  state  churches  of  their  own  corpora 
dodrinae  and  similar  standards  of  doctrine,  to  protect  the 
doctrinal  unity  of  tlieir  own  State  church,  at  the  same  time 
showed  more  and  more  clearly  the  internal  disruption  of 
Protestantism  as  a  wliolo.  and  its  separation  into  Philip- 
pistic  and  Lutheran  State  churches. 

In  the  meantime,  as  we  have  seen,  the  idea  was  pondered 
of  stemming  the  evil  in  another  way,  by  setting  up  a  new 
confession  whicli  was  to  level  the  differences,  and  by  intro- 
ducing a  Corpus  dodrinae  common  to  and  uniting  all  evan- 
gelical state  churches.  This  thought  would  not  have  been 
possible,  had  not  conditions  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  decade 
begun  to  change  materially.  The  Gnesio-Lutherans  who 
had  to  sacrifice  their  leader  Flacius  on  account  of  his  Man- 
ichaizing  doctrine  of  original  sin,  still  maintained  their 
position,  but  had  lost  their  influence  to  a  great  extent  and 
finally  died  out.  The  same  was  true  of  the  Old  Melanch- 
thonians.  Quite  a  number  of  those  who  had  come  forth 
from  Melanchthon's  school,  remembered  their  Lutheranisra 
when  the  contro^'ersy  of  the  Lord's  Supper  became  a  question 
not  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  but  between  Luther 
and  Calvin.  Among  these  were  the  leading  theologians 
of  Lower  Germany:  ]\rartin  Chemnitz  in  Braunschweig 
(tl586),  Xicholas  Selnecker,  f Superintendent  of  Wolfen- 
biittel  1570-1574,  professor  in  Leipzig  1574-1589,  and  f  1502 
in  Dresden)  and  David  Chytraeus  (professor  in  Postock  in 
1551, J  1600),  who,  without  denying  their  Melanchthonian 
training,  claimed  to  be  Lutherans. 


648        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Above  all,  it  was  an  important  thing  that  Wiirttemberg 
under  the  powerful  influence  of  John  Brentz  (^1570), 
through  the  "  Stuttgart  Theologians'  Confession  "  of  Dec. 
19th,  1559,  had  stated  the  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  [taught 
bv  Brontz,  but  not  taught  l)y  the  Formula  of  Concord,'] 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  bring  out  the  antithesis  to  Melanch- 
thon  still  more  sharply,  had  been  relatively  untouched  by 
.  the  controversy  and  could  tlius  become  the  rallying  centre 
of  the  Lutherans.  Accordingly  it  was  a  man  of  the  Church 
of  Wiirttemberg  who  made  it  his  life  aim  to  unite  the  con- 
tending parties.  He  was  employed  by  his  prince  in  numer- 
ous diplomatic  and  ecclesiastical  embassies,  was  most  versa- 
tile and  much  calumniated,  and  from  1562  on,  professor, 
provost  and  chancellor  in  Tubingen.  This  man  was  Jacob 
Andreae. 

THE   FIRST   i^TTEMPTS   TO   UXITE^    1567. 

The  first  new  attempt  at  unity  dates  from  1567.  To 
draw  up  a  formula  of  harmony,  the  Duke  Christopher  of 
Wiirttemberg  commissioned  Jacob  Andreae,  in  consequence 
of  a  colloquium  with  respect  to  doctrinal  differences  which 
he  had  with  the  Landgrave  William  TV.  of  Hesse  Cassel. 
This  formula  of  confession,  laying  aside  all  personalities, 
in  a  purely  objective  way,  confined  itself  to  the  five  contro- 
versial articles  of  justification  by  faith,  good  works,  free 
will,  adiaphora,  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  claimed  to  be  a 
"  Short  Elucidation  in  the  form  of  a  Confession,  according 
to  which  Christian  unity  may  be  attained  in  the  churches 
devoted  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  scandalous  and 
protracted  schism  may  be  ended." " 

But  the.  situation  was  not  favorable  for  success.  Duke 
Christo])lier,  who  first  had  broached  the  idea  of  such  a  work 


'  T.  E.   S. 

^ "  Bekenyityiiss  iind  kiirze  Erlcliirung  etlichsr  zweispaltiger  Artikel,  nach 
welcher  eine  christlirhe  Einlgkeit  in  den  Kirchen.  der  Augsb.  Konfession 
z'.igetan,  getroffen  und  die  argerliche  langwierige  Spaltung  hingelegt  werden 
mochte." 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   FORMULA.  649 

of  concord,  died  on  September  15th,  1568,  and  Landgrave 
William  of  Hesse  Cassel  to  whom  Andreae  was  then  obliged 
to  report,  proposed  to  extend  the  union  not  only  to  all  the 
various  parts  of  Germany,  bnt  even  to  the  Reformed 
Churches  outside  of  Germany.  Moreover  a  unity  was  not 
to  be  thought  of  as  long  as  Philippism  reigned  supreme 
in  Electoral-Saxony,  while  the  Ducal-Saxon  theologians,  as 
was  shown  at  the  Altenburg  Colloquium,  were  unbendingly 
and  extremely  Lutheran.  And  when  Andreae,  in  his  article 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  taught  the  Lutheran  type  of 
doctrine  in  a  moderate  manner,  without  reference  to  its 
relation  to  Christ ology,  gave  an  "  Explanation "  to  it,  in 
which  the  consequences  of  this  teaching  were  extended  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  he  came  into  decided 
conflict  with  the  Philippists.  Both  parties  suspected  him, 
and  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  became  still  more  distant. 


THE    SECOND    ATTEMPT    AT    UNITY,    1569. 

The  first  attempt  in  1567  failed.  In  1569,  Andreae 
journeyed  to  Saxony,  but  both  the  theologians  at  Jena  and 
those  at  Wittenberg  turned  him  back.  On  a  new  journey  in 
1570,  he  succeeded  at  Zerbst  in  moving  the  theologians  pre- 
sent to  a  recognition  of  the  first  edition  of  the  x\ugustana  as 
well  as  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  the  Cate- 
chisms of  Luther  as  the  regulative  norms ;  but  he  gained  all 
the  less  by  this,  since  the  men  of  Wittenberg  and  of  Leipzig 
now  formally  characterized  the  Corpus  Philippicum  as  their 
norm  of  teaching.  In  1571,  almost  every  hope  of  uniting 
vanished.  Having  been  impressed  with  the  fact  that  the 
Philippists  were  adverse  to  all  union,  and  that  his  attempts 
at  reconciliation  only  had  served  to  arouse  the  suspicion  of 
the  Lutherans  against  him,  he  undertook  to  give  his  efforts 
a  different  direction.  From  henceforth  he  strove  to  unite 
all  Lutherans  against  all  Philippists  and  Calvinists. 


650         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

THE  THIRD   AND  MOKE   SOUND  ATTEMPT   AT   UNITY. 

In  1573  and  1574,  the  relations  of  the  parties  in  Saxony, 
which  up  to  this  date  were  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  the  work  of  Concord,  essentially  changed.  The  decided 
Lutheran  party  in  Ducal-Saxony  (Jena)  was  split,  when, 
after  the  death  of  Duke  John  William,  the  Elector  Augustus 
undertook  the  rule  of  the  Thiiringian  Province  and  intro- 
duced the  Wittenberg  type  of  doctrine  by  force  (1573). 

The  Philippistic  party  in  Electoral-Saxony,  up  to  now 
protected  by  the  Elector  Augustus,  who  was  not  versed 
in  theology  and  who,  despite  his  ardor  against  Flacius, 
never  desired  to  be  anything  else  than  "  good  Lutheran " 
and,  up  to  this  time,  never  felt  any  intimation  that  the 
Philippistic  type  of  doctrine  dominant  in  his  country  de- 
parted from  the  Lutheran  standard,  was  at  last  thrown 
from  its  power,  when  the  Philippists,  made  too  bold  by  their 
momentary  victory,  proceeded  openly  in  the  prosecution  of 
their  plans  and  could  not  any  longer  keep  the  Elector  de- 
ceived as  to  the  departure  of  their  doctrine  from  the  Lu- 
theran doctrine  (Exegesis  Perspicva,  1574).  ISTothing  is 
better  fitted  to  show  the  impending  historical  necessity  of 
a  final  Lutheran  confession  than  just  this  temporary  do- 
minion of  Philippism  in  Electoral-Saxony,  which,  possible 
only  under  the  guise  of  Ijutheranism,  broke  to  pieces  the 
moment  that  that  dishonorable  guise,  hitherto  maintained, 
was  torn  away. 

SIX    CHRISTIAN    SERMONS. 

Already  in  the  year  1573,  before  the  catastrophe  in  Elec- 
toral-Saxony made  its  appearance,  Andrea?,  who  had  been 
encouraged  to  further  effort  by  Selnecker's  dedication  of 
his  "  Instituta  Religiouis  Christiana,"  published  "  Six 
Christian  Sermons,  concerning  the  divisions  among  the 
theologians  of  tho  Augsburg  Confession,  as  they  arose  from 


ORIGIN   OF   TEE   FORMULA.  651 

the  year  1548  np  to  this  present  1573d  year,  how  a  phiin 
pastor  and  a  common  Christian  layman  who  might  be  scan- 
dalized thereby,  might  be  set  right  through  tlie  catechism."  ' 

Freed  now  from  the  suspicion  that  had  fallen  on  him 
from  the  extremes  of  both  sides,  Andreae  undertook  to  define 
his  position  to  the  controversies  in  a  precise  manner.  If 
in  his  earlier  "  Confession,"  he  had  omitted  all  controversy 
on  the  Person  of  Christ,  he  not  only  made  good  the  mistake 
this  time,  but  added,  in  addition,  several  discussions  on  the 
relation,  and  on  the  third  use  of  the  Law. 

The  six  sermons  treated:  (1)  the  righteousness  of  faith 
and  the  essential  indwelling  righteousness  of  God;  (2)  the 
necessity  of  good  works  to  salvation;  (3)  original  sin;  (4) 
the  free  will  of  man  in  divine  things;  (5)  church  ceremonies 
which  are  called  adiaphora ;  (6)  the  law  of  God;  (7)  the 
distinction  between  Law  mid  Gospel;  (8)  the  third  use  of 
the  law;  (9)  whether  good  works  are  necessary;  (10)  the 
person  and  majesty  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son 
of  Mary. 

He  dedicated  the  sermons  to  Duke  Julius  of  Brunswick, 
to  whom  Andreae  had  rendered  distinguished  service  in  the 
ordering  of  ecclesiastical  matters  in  his  country.  Martin 
Chemnitz  in  Brunswick,  Joachim  Westphal  in  Hamburg. 
Chytrseus  in  Rostock  received  these  sermons  with  favor,  and 
endeavored  to  obtain  recognition  for  them  from  various  ec- 
clesiastical ministries  of  Lower  Saxony. 

The  sermonic  form  which  Andreae  chose  shows  us  that  in 
his  conception  the  salvation  of  the  church  must  be  found 
in  the  common  cvnnr/elical  Cliristian  consciousness  as  it 
exists  in  the  catecMsrn,  and  not  by  means  of  scientific  the- 
ological investigation.  And  not  only  his  good  Lutheran 
way  of  thinking,    but   also   his   farsightedness   was   sho\\Ti, 


^  "  Sechs  Christlicher  Predig,  Von  den  Spaltungen,  so  sich  zwischen  den 
Theologen  Augspurgischer  Confession,  von  Anno  1548  bis  auf  diss  1573.  Tar 
nach  und  nach  erhoben,  wie  sich  ein  einfaltlger  Pfarrer  und  gemeiner  Christ 
licher  Laye,  so  dardurch  verergert  sein  worden,  aus  seinem  Catechismo  darein 
schlcken  soil  "  etc. — Printed  entire  in  H.  Heppe,  Geschichte  des  deutschcn 
Protestantismus  III,  Appendix  I,  pp.   1-75. 


653         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESS  IONS. 

when  lie  this  time  passed  the  Wittenberg  theologians  bv, 
awaiting  that  God  "  would  surely  in  His  own  time  open  the 
eyes  of  their  Lord  the  Elector  and  through  him  afterward 
set  for  them  a  goal." 

Thus  Andreae's  original  plan  of  uniting  the  Lutherans 
and  Philippists,  which  had  proved  to  be  Utopian  and  only 
heightened  the  antithesis,  was  cast  aside.  A  formula  was 
now  to  be  found  which  would  unite  all  Lutherans  and  which 
should  be  used  as  a  means  of  conflict  against  the  Philippists 
and  the  Calvinists. 

The  sermons,  as  we  have  seen,  were  favorably  received 
by  the  Faculties  in  Tiibingen,  and  in  Rostock  with  Chytrseus 
as  its  head.  But  Chemnitz  was  right  in  showing  Andreae 
that  the  sermonic  form  was  hardly  adapted  to  confessional 
purposes,  and  a  summarizing  according  to  articles  in  "  thesis 
and  antithesis  "  was  called  for.^ 


THE  SWABIAlSr    CONCOEDIA. 

Andreae  at  once  agreed  with  Chemnitz.  Thus  a  new 
draft  was  prepared,  which  was  approved  by  the  Tiibingen 
Theologians  and  the  Stuttgart  Consistory.  This  was  known 
as  the  "Siimhian  Conconlia/' *  It  contains:  1.  Original  Sin. 
2.  Free  Will.  3.  Justification  before  God  by  Faith.  4. 
Good  Works.  5.  The  Law  and  the  Gospel.  6.  The  Third 
Use  of  the  Law.  7.  Churchly  L^sagcs  called  Adiaphora. 
8.  The  Lord's  Supper.  9.  The  Person  of  Christ.  10. 
Eternal  Providence  and  Election  of  God.  11.  Other  Groups 
and  Sects  that  never  accepted  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
It  is  important  to  note  that  Andreae  in  the  Introduction 
emphasized  the  necessity  of  accepting  confessionally  those 
symbols  and  writings  that  w^ere  afterward  received  into 
the  Book  of  Concord. 


"  Cf.   the  letter  of  Duke   Julius  to  AndrcsE  Oct.   4th,   1573,   in   Hachfeld, 
Zeitschr.   fiir  hist.   Theol.   1866,   p.   231. 

♦It  is  reproduced  in  Hachfeld,  Zcitsch.,  1866,  pp.   234  sqq. 


ORIGIN    OF    THE   FORMULA.  G53 

On  March  22nd,  1574,  the  document  was  sent  to  Duke 
Julius,  and  Chemnitz  endeavored  with  the  authorization  of 
the  Duke  to  win  acceptance  for  it.  This  resulted  in  repeated 
revision  by  the  theologians  of  Lower  Saxony,  Chemnitz  be- 
ing the  prin(i})al  agent,  and  finally  in  the  much  more  com- 
pendious and  considerably  more  theological  ''  Swahian- 
tSaxon  Concordia.^' '  When  this  was  accepted  and  sub- 
scribed by  the  theologians  and  pastors  in  the  duchies  of 
Brunswick  and  Mecklenburg,  and  the  counties  of  Mans- 
feld,  Hoya  and  Oldenburg,  the  Lower-Saxon  countries,  they 
regarded  the  Concordia  with  Wiirttemberg  as  sealed.  But 
the  Swabians  were  not  at  once  satisfied  with  this  complete 
recasting.  They  objected  to  the  unevenness  in  style  caused 
by  working  in  the  wishes  of  the  individual  theologians,  the 
Latin  technical  terms  and  the  theological  and  polemic 
tenor  that  did  not  fit  into  a  work  intended  for  the  laity. 
Above  all  else  they  feared  the  arising  of  new  controversies 
on  account  of  the  citations  from  Molanchthon,  who  was  now 
approved  and  now  condemned  in  the  document.  They 
would  have  preferred  it  if  all  quotations  had  been  limited 
to  Luther's  works.* 

They  had  hardly  reached  the  point  of  official  explanations 
when  the  events  in  Saxony  gave  a  new  turn  to  matters. 
After  the  appearance  of  the  Exegesis  perspicua  controver- 
siae  de  cocna  Domini  published  by  the  Silesian  physician 
Joachim  Curaeus  in  1574,  the  Elector  August  became  per- 
suaded of  the  Crypto-Calvinism  of  his  theologians  and  pro- 
ceeded very  sharply  against  the  Philippists  and  w^as  now 
won,  for  the  securing  of  the  orthodoxy  of  his  country,  to 
the  thought  of  a  union  on  a  Lutheran  basis.  In  a  rescript 
to  his  councillors  dated  ISTov.  21st,  1575,'  he  presented  his 


'Heppe  as  above,  III,  Appendix,  pp.  75-166,  the  final  revision  116-325. 
H  e  p  p  e  erroneously  takes  the  first  shorter  revision  for  the  Swabian  Con- 
cordia. 

•  This   appears   from   Andreae's   Opinion   delivered   to   Prince   Elector   August 
of  Saxony,   H  u  1 1  e  r  ,   Concordia  concors,  fol.  86  sq. 
'  H  "  t  t  e  r  as   above,   f^l,   76. 

45 


654        THE   LUTHERAN   C  0  N  FE  S  t^  I  ON  S. 

views  as  to  "  whether  there  might  not  he  a  mode  hy  which 
we  who  doctrinally  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession  miglit 
not  in  a  friendly  way  get  together  and  agree  that  every 
prince  should  appoint  several  peace-loving  theologians,  about 
three  or  four  in  number,  and  an  equal  number  of  political 
councillors,  and  that  these  gentlemen  should  convene  and 
that  every  one  should  bring  his  corpus  doctrinse  with  him 
and  then  deliver  it  to  all  theologians  and  political  coun- 
cillors in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion their  guide.  Then  they  should  look  up  in  their  corpus 
doctrina?,  discuss  and  deliberate  how,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
they  might  make  one  corpus  out  of  all,  to  which  we  might 
all  subscribe,  and  this  book  or  corpus  doctrinse  should  be 
printed  anew  and  given  in  the  land  of  every  prince  to  his 
theologians  to  be  guided  thereby." 

THE    MAULBRONN    FORMULA. 

Even  before  this,  on  the  suggestion  of  the  Elector,  Count 
Ernest  of  Henneberg,  Duke  Ludwig  of  \\'urttemberg  and 
Margrave  Charles  of  Baden  requested  of  the  Wiirttemberg 
Court-preacher,  Lucas  Osiander,  Provost  Balthasar  Bidem- 
bach  in  Stuttgart,  the  Henneberg  Court-preacher  Abel 
Scherdinger  and  several  Badensian  theologians  an  opinion 
on  the  production  of  a  Concordia.  Their  opinion,*  delivered 
Nov.  14th,  1575,  was  approved,  and  Osiander  and  Bidem- 
bach  were  commissioned  to  work  out  a  formula  of  union. 
This  formula  being  once  more  discussed  with  several  Hen- 
neberg and  Badensian  theologians  in  the  Convent  of  Maul- 
bronn  and  subscribed,  Jan.  19th,  157G,  was  called  the  Maul- 
hronn  Formula.^ 

Here  the  Swabians  avoided  all  the  things  which  they  dis- 
liked in  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia,  such  as  the  Latin 
technical  terms  and  the  mention  of  Melanchthon,  and  con- 


"  H  u  t  t  e  r  as  above,  fol.   89  sq. 

'  Printed  byTh.Pressel,  Jahrbiicher  fiir  deuti^che  Theologie,  II   (1866), 
pp.   640   sqq. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   FORMULA.  655 

fined  their  quotations  to  Luther's  works.  The  arrangement 
of  this  much  briefer  confession  was  essentially  different. 
To  express  the  thought  more  clearly  that  the  object  was  to 
unite  the  confessors  of  the  Augustana,  all  heresies  equally 
condemned  by  the  contending  parties  were  excluded,  the 
individual  points  were  arranged  in  the  same  order  as  in 
the  Augustana  and  before  every  section  was  placed  the  cor- 
responding statement  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Thus 
the  Formula  contained  the  following  sections:  1.  Original 
Sin.  2.  The  Person  of  Christ.  3.  Justification  by  Faith. 
4.  Thfe  Law  and  the  Gospel.  5.  Good  works.  6.  The  Lord's 
Supper.  7.  Of  churchly  rites  or  things  called  Adiaphora. 
8.  Free  Will.    9.  The  Third  Use  of  the  Law  of  God. 

The  Saxon  Elector  received  the  Maulbronn  Formula 
about  the  same  time  as  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia  sent 
him  by  Duke  Julius  of  Brunswick.  He  asked  an  opinion 
on  both  of  Jacob  Andreae.  Andreae  gave  the  Maulbronn 
Formula  the  preference  for  formal  reasons — the  substance 
was  the  same  in  both.  He  was  also  willing  that  the  Swa- 
bian-Saxon should  be  laid  as  a  basis.  There  was  not  much 
more  need  of  disputing  concerning  the  doctrine  in  itself 
"  which  had  been  so  thoroughly  disputed  all  these  years  that 
people  doubtless  well  understood;  and  that  not  many  mis- 
understandings occurred  any  more."  Deciding  thus  for  the 
Maulbronn  Formula  as  the  basis  of  the  work  of  Concordia, 
he  advised  at  the  same  time  to  arrange  a  convention  to 
which  not  only  theologians  from  the  Electorate  of  Saxony 
and  from  AViirttemberg  were  to  be  invited,  but  also  Chem- 
nitz and  Chytrseus  the  principal  authors  of  the  Swabian- 
Saxon  Concordia.  The  Elector  interpreted  this  to  be  an 
approval  of  his  own  plan  and  engaged  in  the  matter  with 
great  zeal.  This  gave  rise  to  the  danger,  under  the  political 
constellation  of  the  Empire,  <ji  preventing  some  govern- 
ments from  joining  of  which  it  had  been  expected  that  they 
would. 

The  Duke  desired  to  hold  a  convention  of  reputable  the- 


656         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ologians,  and  selected  Chemnitz  and  Chytrseus  from  !N"orth 
Germany.  Augustus  agreed  thoroughly  to  this  plan :  ^'  Al- 
though every  authority  must  now  be  timid  in  mingling  in 
among  the  confused  minds  of  the  theologians,  nevertheless, 
as  there  is  no  Pope  among  them,  he  feels  anxious  lest  it  will 
grow  worse  and  worse  in  their  acts,  if  the  civil  authority 
does  not  enter  into  the  matter  from  every  side."  Therefore 
the  theologians  should  gather  to  establish  a  common  Corpus 
Doctrinse.  Moreover  "  certain  controversial  theologians 
such  as  Illyricus  and  others "  have  died,  "  the  rest  are 
wearied  in  part  with  disputing  and  scolding,  so  th'at  it 
will  be  easier  to  come  to  a  conclusion."  This  was  true. 
The  younger  generation  had  attained — in  so  far  as  they 
did  not  follow  the  recoil  of  Melanchthon  toward  Calvin — a 
certain  unified  Luther-Melanchthonian  view. 

THE    LICHTENBERG    AND    TORGAU    CONVENTIONS.    1576. 

Things  went  forward.  Selnecker  had  been  working  in 
Leipzig  since  157-i,  and  through  his  influence  the  theolo- 
gians of  the  Elector  were  won  in  a  body  at  a  convention 
in  Lichtenberg  in  February,  1576;  and  upon  their  request 
Jacob  Andreae  himself  was  called  to  Saxony,  and  on  May 
28th  (to  June  7th)  a  more  general  convention  of  theologians 
met  in  Torgau.  This  was  attended  by  the  Saxon  theologians 
led  by  Selnecker,  Andreae  and  Chytricus  and  two  represen- 
tatives of  the  Electorate  of  Brandenburg,  the  general  super- 
intendent, Andrew  Museulus  and  the  Frankfurt  professor, 
Christopher  Korner.  Here,  with  the  final  consent  of  An- 
dreae, they  returned  to  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia  and  its 
divisions,  but  re-cast  it  according  to  the  wishes  of  the  Swa- 
bians  with  due  consideration  of  the  ]\Iaulbronn  Formula. 
The  work  thus  produced,  the  "  Torgian  "  Book"  contained 


'"  The  title  in  the  manuscript  copies  reads  :  "  Opinions  as  to  how  the  di- 
visions among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  may  be  recon- 
ciled and  settled  by  means  of  God's  Word."  Compare  H  e  p  p  e  ,  as  above  III, 
118  ;  and  the  same,  Der  Text  drr  Bcrgischen  Concordienformcl  &c. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   FORMULA.  657 

twelve  articles,  the  same  that  are  found  in  the  finally  adopted 
Formula  of  Concord.  The  reason  for  this  number  of 
articles  was,  that  in  reference  to  the  controversy  called  forth 
by  Aepinus  in  Hamburg,  a  new  article  entitled  Christ's  De- 
scent into  Hell  was  inserted  as  the  eighth  article. 


THE   TORGAU   BOOK   AND   ITS   CRITICISMS. 

With  the  completion  of  the  Torgaii  Book  an  important 
step  forward  toward  union  was  taken,  and  the  Elector 
Augustus  exerted  himself  to  the  further  progress  of  the 
work.  At  his  suggestion  copies  of  the  Formula  were  sent 
to  the  most  of  the  Evangelical  Estates  in  Germany,  with 
the  plea  that  the  same  be  tested  by  the  Theologians  there, 
and  that  the  result  of  this  test  be  returned  to  Dresden.  The 
criticisms  that  came  in,  which  mostly  harmonized  with  each 
other,  afforded  a  characteristic  picture  of  the  ecclesiastical 
situation.  The  Anlialt  theologians  frankly  declared  the 
whole  undertaking  to  be  useless :  "  Why  make  a  confession 
which  is  at  least  ten  times  more  expanded  than  all  the  con- 
clusions of  the  Ancient  Church  ?  "  Above  all,  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  dare  not  be  separated.  But  on  the  other  side 
there  were  zealous  Lutherans  like  Heshusius  and  Wigand 
in  Prussia,  who  found  it  difficult  to  lay  dowTi  their  excep- 
tions against  this  work  of  mediation  and  its  author  Andreae, 
and  who  wanted  to  insist  that  the  names  of  the  heretics, 
with  Melanchthon  at  the  head,  be  cited  in  tlie  Book.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  were  territorial  churches  like  those  of 
Pomerania  and  Holstein  in  which  the  situation  with  respect 
to  the  divisions  in  doctrine  had  not  penetrated  into  the 
common  consciousness  and  therefore  declared  that  they  felt 
it  strange  that  Melanchthon's  authority  was  not  expressly 
recognized  along  side  of  Luther's.  They  had  no  idea  of 
deviating  from  Luther's  authority.  The  same  Pomeranian 
theologians   who   accepted   Melanchthon's    authority   in   this 


658        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

way,  declared  themselves  to  be  a  unit  with  the  Articles  of 
the  Torgaii  Book  concerning  the  Lord's  Snpper  and  the 
Person  of  Christ ;  and  the  same  Holstein  theologians  who 
denied  the  necessity  of  a  new  Confession  (since  new  ones 
would  eat  np  the  old  ones  and  stir  new  strife),  and  took 
offence  at  the  new  treatment  of  Christology,  were  in  favor 
that  everything  that  was  in  their  own  favorite  Corpus  Doc- 
trinsD  including  the  Sehmalkald  Articles,  should  in  future 
disputation  be  decided  out  of  Luther's  writings  along  side 
of  the  Scripture. 

By  the  end  of  February,  1577,  most  of  the  criticisms 
concerning  the  Torgau  Book  had  come  in  to  Dresden,  aud  the 
Elector  Augustus  commissioned  Andreae,  Chemnitz  and 
Selnecker  to  consider  the  criticisms  and  finally  edit  the 
work. 

THE    BERGEN    BOOK. 

They  convened  March  1st,  1577,  in  the  convent  of  Ber- 
gen. When  still  further  criticisms  were  received,  further 
deliberations  became  necessary.  To  these  Musculus,  Kor- 
ner  and  Chytranis  were  also  invited. 

There  could  be  no  mention  of  a  change  of  the  original 
program  which  was  to  give  expression  to  the  genuine  Luth- 
eran doctrine.  They  confined  themselves  to  greater  pre- 
cision in  some  of  tlie  dissertations  aud  to  meeting  ambi- 
guities. Many  objections  had  been  made  against  the  great 
compass  of  the  Formula  which  made  it  unfit  for  a  confes- 
sional symbol.      To  satisfy  these  Andreae  had  composed — 


THE   EPITOME. 

"  Comprehen^sive  svmmary  of  the  articles  in  controversy 
among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  set  forth 
and  reconciled  in  a  Christian  way,  according  to  God's  Word, 
in  the  following  recapitulation." 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   FOEMULA.  659 

Probably  this,  though  afterward  revised,  was  adopted 
at  the  first  convention  in  Bergen. 

At  the  last  convention  toward  the  end  of  Mav,  they 
qniokly  agreed  on  the  chief  part,  eventnally  the  second  part 
of  the  work,  The  Solid  Declaration:  "  Solid  [originally 
"  general "  ]  plain  and  clear  repetition  and  declaration  of 
certain  articles  of  the  Angsbnrg  Confession  concerning 
which  for  some  time  there  has  been  Controversy  among 
some  Theologians  who  Subscribe  thereto,  Stared  and  Settled 
according  to  the  Analogy  of  God's  AVord  and  the  Summary 
Contents  of  our  Christian  Doctrine."  The  "  Catalogue  of 
Testimo7ii('s  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  added  fii-st  with  the 
caption  ".V])pendix  "  and  later  without  the  same,  and  which 
was  composed  to  prove  that  the  Formula  of  ( 'oncord  does 
not  teach  any  new  thing  on  this  point,  and  brought  testi- 
mony from  the  Fathers  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  two  natures 
and  tlie  Commimicatio  Idioniaturn,  is  a  private  work  of  An- 
dreae  and  Chemnitz.  On  the  28th  of  ^fay,  1577,  the  finished 
Bergen  Book  was  laid  before  the  Elector  Augustus.  This 
is  the  Soli  da  Declarafio. 

Thus  originated  the  "  Bergen  Booh  "  or,  as  the  Lutherans 
usually  named  it  in  reference  to  its  object  and  what  it  finally 
became  to  them,  the  "  Formula  of  Concord,"  the  result  of 
years  of  discussion  and  of  many  considerations  not  always  of 
a  theological  nature,  and  of  the  collaboration  of  many  theo- 
logians who  were  animated  by  the  same  intention,  but  only 
gradually  walked  the  same  pathways.  That  determined  its 
character. 

The  original  thought  of  laying  the  Bergen  Book  before 
a  general  convention  of  the  Evangelical  estates  w^as  regarded 
as  too  dangerous.  Both  the  electors  of  Saxony  and  Branden- 
burg undertook  to  send  copies  of  the  Bergen  Book  first 
of  all  to  those  estates  for  their  approval  and  signature  whose 
co-operation  one  could  regard  as  sure. 

That  the  Confession  was  not  accepted  on  all  sides  with 
equal  willingness,  that  those  churches  which  had  had  a  dif- 


660         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ferent  development  of  the  process  of  confessing  and  es- 
pecially had  connected  themselves  with  the  later  mode  of 
Melanchthon's  teaching,  in  order  to  maintain  the  bond  of 
connection  with  the  Calvinistic  Reformed  Church,  should 
have  rejected  the  Bergian  Confession,  and  thus  be  pressed 
to  approach  the  Keformed  Confession  more  closely,  is  so 
natural,  that  one  would  only  be  astonished  if  it  were  other- 
wise. 

For  the  very  object  of  the  Confession  was  to  establish  the 
genuine  doctrine  as  over  against  the  Melauchthonian  di- 
visions. It  was  a  consequence  of  the  leading  ecclesiastical 
conception,  that  new  ecclesiastical  separations  must  also 
take  place,  where  they  remained  in  disunity  in  the  doctrine. 

It  is  also  easily  comprehensible  that  the  Formula  of 
Concord  would  become  a  rock  of  offense  to  all  those  who 
believe  that  a  covering  over  of  doctrinal  differences  which 
were  already  existing,  and  a  regarding  them  with  indif- 
ference was  the  right  way  for  the  restoration  of  the  pea(;e 
of  the  church. 


CHAPTER   XXVn. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  INTRODUCTIOX  OF  THE  COXCORDIA,  AND 
THE  AUGUSTANA  CO^^SERVED. 

Not  Introduced  by  Papal  or  Imperial  Mandate — Sent  Forth  and  Discussed 
Throughout  Germany — None  Other  so  Fully  Tested — The  Quedlinburg 
Declaration — A  Good  Cause  not  Accountable  for  the  Sins  of  Individuals — The 
Signatories  not  Condemnable — Planck — More  Democratic  and  Unanimous  Than 
Would  be  Possible  in  America  To-day — No  Creed  really  CEcumenical — No 
undue  Political  Influence — The  Opinion  of  Kolde  and  of  Muller^The  Extent 
of  the  Adoption — Rejected  by  Calvinistic  States — Lutherans  Who  Failed  to 
Subscribe — The  Opinion  of  Thomasius,  Planck  and  Kollner — The  Real  Con- 
fessional Validity. 

THE  question  of  introducing  the  Formula  was  difficult. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  arose  out  of  a  historical 
and  heroic  occasion,  in  the  midst  of  popular  excitement, 
and  in  response  to  the  demand  of  Pope  and  Emperor.  But 
Pope  and  Emperor  had  no  concern  for  the  healing  of  Prot- 
estant, internal  dissensions,  or  for  the  putting  forth  of 
a  constructive  Declaration  of  the  Lutheran  Church's  Faith. 
Popular  excitement,  too,  was  lacking,  for  the  people  were 
weary,  hopeless,  and  separated.  Yet,  it  scarcely  will  hv 
accounted  against  the  Confessional  character  of  the  new 
ConfesJ?ion,  that  its  appearance  was  not  mediated  bv  a 
mandate  of  Pope  or  Emperor;'  and  that  it  addressed  itself, 
in  appealing  directly  to  the  people  of  God — to  "those  now 

^Vid.  Chap.  XXIX,  p.  711. 

661 


662         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

living,  and  those  who  shall  come  after  us  ", — to  the  less 
heroic  and  more  humble,  but  equally  necessary  task  of 
probing  and  rightly  binding  up  the  wounds  of  a  weak  and 
helpless  Zion. 

The  Confession  was  sent  forth  into  every  part  of  Ger- 
many, and  was  discussed  and  examined  by  ministers  and 
teachers  in  Conferences  or  Synods  called  for  the  purpose 
of  testing  it.  Twenty-five  criticisms  came  in  to  the  theolo- 
gians who  devoted  nine  days  to  considering  them  and  de- 
tails of  language.  At  last,  on  May  29th,  1577,  the  six 
theologians  signed  the  Confession  with  the  following  words: 

"  Therefore,  in  the  sight  of  God  and  of  the  entire  Church 
of  Christ,  we  wish  to  testify,  to  those  now  living  and  to  those 
who  come  after  us,  that  the  above  Declaration  .  .  .  and 
no  other  is  our  Faith,  Doctrine  and  Confession,  in  which 
we  also  will  appear,  by  God's  grace,  wath  unterrified  hearts, 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  and  for  it  will  give  an 
account.  ISTor  will  we  utter  .  .  .  anything  contrary  to 
this  Declaration,  but,  by  the  help  of  God's  grace,  intend  to 
abide  thereby.  After  mature  deliberation,  we  have  in 
God's  fear  and  witli  the  invocation  of  His  name,  attached 
our  signatures  with  our  own  hands." 

That  such  a  great  wonder  should  have  been  wrought  by 
the  grace  of  God,  in  bringing  into  internal  concord  the 
conservative  evangelical  Churches  on  the  basis  of  the  old 
Augustana  was  not  satisfactory  to  those  without — as  little 
to  the  Protestant  communions  closest  to  the  Lutheran 
Church,  as  to  those  who  constituted  its  complete  antipode. 
Those  nearest  were  the  loudest  to  decry  the  validity  of  the 
result. 

"  The  Reformed  Count  Palatine,  John  Casimir  at- 
tempted to  hinder  the  acceptance  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord by  seeking,  at  the  instigation  of  the  English  Queen, 
to  organize  a  union  of  all  the  Reformed  against  it  (1577 
Convention  at  Frankfurt).  The  embassador  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  of  England  raised  energetic  objection  that  several 


THE   FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  663 

of  the  German  courts  must  be  encouraging  separation  of 
the  Evangelical  churches. 

"  But  in  the  very  nature  of  things  this  could  not  have  any 
success,  neither  did  anything  come  of  the  attempt  resolved 
on  at  Frankfurt  to  establish  a  national  Reformed  confession 
which  should  show  the  unity  of  the  Augustana  and  the 
Helvetica. 

'^Against  this  on  the  side  of  the  Lutherans  it  was  souglit 
to  do  what  was  possible  under  the  given  circumstances  to 
be  friendly  to  the  uncertain  estates,  such  as  the  Elector 
Louis  jf  the  Palatinate,  the  Landgrave  William  of  Hesse, 
the  Princes  Joachim  and  Ernst  of  Xaumburg,  and  others,  to 
make  them  friendly  to  the  work  of  Concord."  ^^ 

The  Calvinists  complained  that  a  General  Council  should 
have  been  held  before  the  Concordia  was  formally  accepted. 
Had  this  been  done,  the  Calvinists,  calling  themselves  Lu- 
theran, and  the  Philippists,  would  have  gained  an  oppor- 
tunity to  stir  up  new  strife. 

In  reply  to  the  criticism  that  it  was  unjust  for  only 
six  theologians  to  write  a  Confession  for  the  whole  Church, 
and  that  a  General  Synod  should  have  been  held  before  the 
signing  of  the  Confession,  the  Convention  at  Quedlinburg, 
in  1583,  declared  it  untrue  that  the  Formula  of  Concord 
had  been  composed  by  only  six  theologians,  and  reminded 
the  critics,  how,  on  the  contrary,  the  articles  had  first  been 
sent  a  number  of  times  to  all  the  Lutheran  Churches  in 
Germany — how,  in  order  to  consider  them,  Synods  and  Con- 
ferences had  been  held  on  every  side,  and  the  articles  had 
been  thoroughly  tested — how  criticisms  had  been  made  upon 
them — and  how  the  criticisms  had  conscientiously  been  taken 
in  hand  by  a  special  commission. 

The  Quedlinburg  Convention  therefore  declared  in  its 
Minutes,  that,  indeed,  "  such  a  frequent  revision  and  testing 
of  the  Christian  Book  of  Concord,  many  times  repeated,  is 


i»  llauck  Encyc. 


(i(Ji        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

a  much  greater  work,  than  if  a  General  Synod  had  been 
assembled  respecting  it,  to  which  every  province  would 
commission  two  or  three  theologians,  who  in  the  name  of 
all  the  rest  would  have  helped  to  test  and  approve  the  book. 
Since  in  that  way  only  one  Synod  would  have  been  held, 
for  the  comparing  and  testing  of  this  work,  but,  as  it  was, 
many  Synods  were  held ;  and  it  was  sent  to  many  provinces 
who  had  it  tested  by  the  weighty  and  mature  judgment  of 
their  theologians ;  in  such  manner  as  has  never  occurred  in 
the  case  of  any  book  or  any  matter  of  religion  since  the 
beginning  of  Christianity,  as  is  evident  from  the  history 
of  the  Church." 

In  planting  Christianity,'  in  founding  the  Church,'  in 
introducing  the  Confession,  the  good  cause  should  not  be 
held  responsible  for  sins  of  individuals  who  act  against  the 
spirit  and  intent  of  the  movement.  We  are  solemnly  told 
that  no  one  was  forced  by  threats  to  sign  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  and  that  no  one  was  tempted  to  do  so  by  promises. 
We  know  that  no  one  was  taken  suddenly  by  surprise. 
Every  one  was  given  time  to  think.  As  the  work  of  com- 
position extended  through  years,  so  several  years  were  given 
for  the  work  of  signing.  Some  objection  has  been  lodged 
against  the  means  used  to  secure  the  completion  and  assent 
to  the  Book  of  Concord.*  There  always  is  a  small,  narrow 
and  petty  way  of  looking  at  historical  personages,  events 
and  movements ;  and  there  is  a  large,  just  and  sjTupathetic 
way  of  making  the  estimate.  It  is  easy  to  impugn  even  the 
Xew  Testament  by  saying  that  John  was  vindictive,  James 
was  ambitious,  Peter  was  impetuous,  and  Paul  was  narrow 
and  rabbinic.  It  is  not  difficult  to  find  the  supposed  un- 
worthy motive  in  the  noblest  deeds  and  events  that  are 
chronicled  in  the  annals  of  human  history ;  and  so,  it  is  easy, 
after  the  manner  of  the  historian  Planck,  to  apply  the 
smaller    defects   of  the   principal  men   in  our   confessional 


=*  John   6  :70. 

'Acts  5:   1-4. 

*  Cp.  the  imputation  in  footnote  of  Schaff,  in  loco. 


THE   FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  665 

history  to  their  chief  actions,  and  to  put  the  least  charitable 
construction  on  all  their  words  and  deeds. 

Our  poor  human  nature,  common  to  all  of  us  in  the 
Church,  is  so  weak,  that  nothing  is  done  by  us  which  does 
not  seem  to  bear  the  stamp  of  evil  upon  it.  But  to  point 
out  these  stains  is  not  to  justify  or  condemn  an  act.  If  it 
were,  all  ecclesiastical  action  and  writing  must  cease  or  be 
condemned  even  in  the  saints  of  this  latter  day. 

It  may  be  regarded  as  reasonably  certain  tluit  not  all  the 
vain-glorious  men,  nor  all  the  party- workers,  who  prefer 
tlioir  own  organization  and  name  to  the  cause  of  the  truth, 
nor  all  the  pugnacious  men,  nor  all  the  narrow-minded  men, 
nor  all  the  men  of  religious  dcadness  and  theological  fury, 
lived  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Nor  are  all  those  to  whom 
such  a  despicable  character  can  justly  be  attributed,  to  be 
found  in  the  Lutheran  Churcli  of  that  Century,  as  little  as  all 
the  true  saints  were  to  be  found  within  the  borders  of  Luther- 
anism,  and  all  the  doubtful  saints  were  to  be  looked  for  in 
Geneva  or  Rome.  There  was  a  deep  piety  of  many  in  Rome, 
and  in  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  of  many  also  in  the 
Lutheran  Church.  Perhaps  the  piety  and  honesty  of  the 
old  and  the  mediating  Lutherans  in  that  century,  would  com- 
pare favorably  with  that  of  the  two  schools  of  to-day.  That 
there  are  the  impious,  at  least  those  who  are  not  models,  in 
both  schools,  in  both  ages,  must  be  admitted.  The  question 
before  us  then  is  not  to  be  decided  by  looking  at  the  weak 
human  nature  on  any  side,  but  by  an  examination  of  the 
principles  beneath  it. 

If  some  were  coerced  into  signing  the  Book  of  Concord 
by  moral  suasion,  or  otherwise,  it  is  at  least  a  fact  that  there 
were  many  more  who  were  not  thus  coerced.  If  there  was 
some  bitter  feeling  on  both  sides  in  the  Sixteenth  Century, 
surely  there  has  also  been  some  bitter  feeling  on  both  sides 
in  the  l^ineteenth  Century,  in  time  of  confessional  activity 
and  excitement.  If  the  Concordia  was  not  universally  ac- 
cepted, let   it  never  be  forgotten,   that   this  very  thing  was 


CG6         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

also  the  case  with  every  other  creed  in  Christendom;  and 
that  it  became  more  conspicuous  in  the  case  of  the  Formula, 
because  of  the  greater  pains  taken  to  secure  the  approbation 
of  every  individual  in  truly  democratic  manner. 

Had  the  Elector  Augustus  and  a  few  other  statesmen 
signed  it,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg;  though  they  might  not  have  been  able  to  cause 
the  clergy  under  them  to  obey  so  readily  as  occurred  after 
the  signing  at  Augsburg,  the  clergy  being  now  more  enlight- 
ened, the  question  of  improper  subscription  could  not  have 
been  raised.  A  moment's  thought  should  convince  every 
reasonable  mind  that  the  average  human  nature  of  the  day 
will  probably  control  the  average  securing  and  signing  of 
documents.  We  very  much  doubt  whether  the  Lutheran 
Church  to-day  could  secure  any  democratic  subscription  so 
clean,  so  conscientious,  so  united,  or  so  large,  as  that  which 
was  given  to  the  Book  of  Concord. 

It  would  require  the  name  of  every  Lutheran  clergyman 
in  North  America,  secured  Avithout  undue  influence,  to  gain 
such  a  result.  And  when  we  consider  the  nature  of  Twen- 
tieth-Century Lutheranism,  and  how  many  nominal  Lu- 
therans, on  the  ground  of  personal  liberty,  or  because  they 
do  not  deem  united  effort  necessary,  or  from  indifl"erence, 
would  fail  to  append  their  signatures  to  a  document;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  how  many  otherwise  excellent  Cliristians 
think  so  little  of  their  signature  in  our  day  that  they  wnll 
sign  any  paper  presented  to  them,  we  may  feel  sure  that 
no  new  creed  of  the  Church  to-day  could  be  so  unanimously 
and  yet  so  genuinely  accepted. 

No  Creed  of  the  Church,  in  any  age,  lias  ever  been  unani- 
mously accepted.  The  Apostles'  Creed  was  not  universally 
accepted ;  and  its  final  prevalence  was  not  entirely  apart 
from  political  movement — Harnack  would  say,  was  due  to 
political  movement — in  the  Church.  If  the  history  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  were  entered  into  in  detail,  it  would  reveal 
conditions   in   the   Church   beside   which   those   surrounding 


THE   FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  667 

the  Formula  of  Concord  were  heavenly.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  Xeither  the  Apostles',  nor 
the  Athanasian  Creed  is  really  oecumenical.  Neither  of 
them  was  known  to  the  Greek  or  Oriental  Church,  which 
abode  faithful  to  the  faith  "  settled  by  the  Holy  Fathers 
at  jSTicaea."  '  And  can  we  say  that  the  conditions  surround- 
ing the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  were  ideal  ? 
The  chapter  in  this  book  on  Melanchthon  as  a  diplomat 
and  the  one  on  the  Melanchthonian  Principle  will  answer 
the  question. 

The  churches  were  not  given  an  opportunity  to  discuss 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  they  discussed  the  Book  of 
Concord.  What  the  result  at  Augsburg  would  have  been 
if  the  personality  of  Luther  had  not  been  standing  in  the 
background,  and  the  Church  had  been  torn  by  dissensions, 
and  every  article  had  had  to  be  canvassed  and  agreed  on 
in  advance  by  all  the  churches,  no  man  can  forsee. 

That  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  achieved  so  much,  is 
a  glorious  tribute  to  the  confessional  truth  in  it.  And  the 
same  is  true  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  If  the  Formula 
had  not  embodied  the  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Church, 
the  real  development  of  the  inner  nature  of  Lutheranism 
stated  in  Confessional  manner,  it  would  not  have  been 
accepted  in  the  wonderful  way  it  was,  and  amid  the  bafflings 
and  discouragements  of  the  period,  and  would  not  have 
achieved  what  it  did. 

Where    religion    is    introduced    and    upheld    by    political 


'  Cp.  Principal  John  TiiUock  of  St.  Andrews :  "  Of  aU  Christian  creeds,  the 
Nicene,  or  Niceno-Constantinopolitan,  is  the  only  real  oecumenical  creed, 
deliberately  discussed  and  adopted  by  the  representatives  of  the  universal 
Church.  The  two  others  associated  with  it  in  the  services  of  the  Western 
Church  have  not  only  never  had  acceptance  beyond  the  range  of  that  church, 
but  are  very  gradual  prowths  within  it.  without  any  definite  parentage  or 
deliberate  and  consultative  authority.  They  emerge  gradually  during  many 
centuries  irom  the  confusions  and  variations  of  Christian  opinion,  slowly 
crystallizing  into  definite  shape ;  and  such  authority  as  belongs  to  them  Is 
neither  primitive  nor  patristic.  It  is  the  reflected  assent  of  the  later  church 
in  the  West,  and  the  uncritical  patronage  of  a  comparatively  ignorant  age, 
which  have  alone  elevated  them  to  the  same  position  as  the  faith  defined  at 
Nicaea,  which  is  the  only  truly  Oatholic,  or  universal,  symbol  of  the  universal 
church." 


668         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

authority,  as  it  was  on  all  sides  in  the  days  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, with  the  consent  of  both  Luther  and  Melanchthon, 
and  of  all  parties,  since  none  knew  any  better,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  individual  Protestant  freedom  of  conscience  had 
not  worked  itself  out  into  the  State  as  it  has  to-day,*  it  is 
almost  inevitable  that  religious  measures  will  to  some  ex- 
tent, at  least  indirectly,  be  affected  by  political  authority. 

If  political  authority  was  permitted  to  show  itself  in 
behalf  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  as  also  had  been  the  case 
for  and  against  the  Augsburg  and  the  other  Protestant 
Sixteenth-Century  Confessions,  it  is  to  be  regretted;  yet 
it  does  not  invalidate,  nor  necessarily  tarnish  the  Confession 
as  such.  N^either  did  it  really  contribute,  we  may  be  sure, 
to  the  actual  influence  of  the  Formula. 

"  To  persecute  errorists,  is  only  another  mode  of  dissem- 
inating and  strengthening  their  cause.  It  gives  them  im- 
portance; it  excites  sympathy  in  their  behalf;  and  whilst 
it  may  reclaim  the  timid,  it  makes  others  ten-fold  more 
firm  and  active.  Nor  was  the  effect  to  be  different  in  the 
cases  of  those  princes  and  rulers  who  employed  severe  and 
bloody  measures  against  the  Crypto-Calvinists  and  others 
three  hundred  years  ago.  ^Yllen  carried  so  far  by  the- 
ological disputes  as  to  behead  Horst  and  Funk,  imprison 
John  Frederick,  quarter  Grumbach  and  Briick,  hang  their 
adherents,  confine  Peucer  in  a  loathsome  dungeon,  banish 
Riidiger,  Crell,  AViedebram,  Cruciger,  Pegel,  and  Moller, 
and  to  commit  other  deeds  of  violence  against  dissenters, 
no  wonder  tliat  confidence  was  destroyed,  hearts  alienated, 
and  multitudes  driven  to  array  themselves  under  another 
standard.  And  yet,  such  was  the  stormy  aspect  of  things 
years  before  the  Form  of  Concord  was  written. 

''■  It  was  not  the  Form  of  Concord  that  originated  these 
scenes  of  strife,  bitterness,  and  blood.     On  the  contrary,  this 


•  Yet  the  German  emperor  would  even  to-day  be  pleased  to  unite  church 
and  state  more  closely  in  a  national  religion,  on  the  basis  of  a  national 
Germanic   "  Union." 


THE  FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  669 

new  and  valuable  symbol,  naturally  and  necessarily,  grew 
out  of  these  lamentable  religious  disturbances.  It  was 
framed  with  reference  to  their  settlement.  It  was  designed, 
as  its  name  imports,  to  bind  together  the  distracted  church, 
to  cast  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters,  and  to  save  the  precious 
ark  of  God  from  being  dashed  into  irrecoverable  fragments. 
It  was  for  this  that  Augustus  and  his  coadjutors  instituted 
measures  to  bring  it  into  being.  It  was  for  this,  that  it 
was  submitted  to  the  church  for  examination  and  criticism 
before  its  completion.  It  was  for  this  that  Chemnitz,  and 
Andreae,  and  Selnecker  labored  upon  it  with  so  much  assid- 
uity and  prayer.  And  it  was  for  this  that  it  was  at  once 
acknowledged  and  subscribed  by  three  electors,  twenty 
princes,  twenty-four  earls,  the  lords  of  the  four  free  cities, 
thirty-eight  members  of  the  Diet,  and  about  eight  thousand 
office-bearers  in  the  churches  and  schools."  *' 

So  little  was  there  thought  of  using  force '  that  those  who 
showed  that  they  believed  otherwise  were  not  allowed  to  sub- 
scribe. Andreae  himself  testified :  "  I  can  truly  say  that  no 
man  has  been  forced  to  sign,  nor  has  been  driven  away  on 
this  account." '  In  Berlin,  the  commission  found  two 
hundred  ministers  assembled.  The  Formula  was  read  word 
by  word.  Criticisms  were  heard  and  explained,  and  finally 
all  were  agreed  to  it,  so  that  the  president  of  the  Commission 
thanked  God  for  the  true  doctrine  thus  given,  and  the  whole 
assembly  cried  "Amen." 

We  believe  no  instance  is  known  in  which  it  is  of  record 
that  compulsion  was  used  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the 
Formula.  Doubtless  moral  suasion  of  a  sort  that  men  use 
to-day  in  getting  out  votes  on  what  they  deem  to  be  the 
right  side,  was  busy  then  as  now.  It  is  possible  that 
official  zeal  may  in  instances  have  used  political  persuasion; 


*»  The   Evangelical  Review. 

'  As  even  Dr.   Schaff  admits.     Vkl.  footnote   9  in  this  chapter. 

•  Vid.  MuUer,  Si/m&.  Biicher,  Einleit.  CVII. 

46 


6rO        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  that  there  may  be  some  weight  in  Hutter's  inference 
from  the  arrangement  of  the  signatures. 

But  after  due  allowance  for  such  possibilities,  the  great 
fact  that  is  decisive  is  that  the  Formula  ^vas  adopted  by  an 
overwhelming  part  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  bulk  of  these 
signatures  were  given  with  heart  and  soul.  As  over  against 
Planck's  prejudiced  assertion  that  the  general  reception  of 
the  Formula  was  obtained  "  by  actual  compulsion,"  let  us 
jilance  the  balanced  historical  verdict  of  Kolde: — 

''  oSTaturally  enough,  the  churches  leaning  toward  Calvin 
allied  themselves  more  closely  to  each  other  over  against  a 
formula  which  excluded  them.  Every  formula  of  union, 
like  every  confessional  symbol,  has  ever  had  a  separating 
influence. 

"  It  was  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  many  hesitated,  es- 
pecially in  Saxony  [the  seat  of  Melanchthon's  strength], 
and  that  the  electoral  commissaries,  who  traveled  from  place 
to  place,  experienced  many  objections  and  had  to  quiet  many 
misgivings.  It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  desire  of  the 
ruler  of  the  land  played  its  part  in  influencing  them.  .  .  . 
But  on  the  other  hand  the  influence  of  the  ruler  must  not 
be  estimated  at  too  high  a  rate,  as  many  of  the  opponents 
of  the  Book  of  Concord  have  encleavored  to  do.  Among 
other  reasons,  this  fact  is  borne  out  by  the  addition  to  the 
signatures  '  cum  ore  et  cordo ',  which  occurs  with  great 
frequency."  ^ 

To  this  may  be  added  the  older  words  of  Mueller  in  his 
Introduction  to  the  S^Tnbols : — 

"  The  oft  repeated  offences  and  reproaches  of  this  Sym- 
bol, were  listened  to  and  corrected,  with  moderation  and 
patience.  Time  was  allowed  to  every  one  to  consider.  In- 
deed each  one  was  admonished,  in  the  name  of  the  Elector, 
not  to  subscribe  against  his  conscience.  And,  although  Hut- 
ter   contends  that   many  subscribed   it   reluctantly,   it   is   a 


*' Close  of  Kolde's  Introduction  to  the  Formula. 


THE   FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  671 

mere  conjecture  drawn  simply  from  the  arrangement  of  the 
signatures,  which  is  no  proof  that  the  signatures  themselves 
were  obtained  by  force.  Andreae  confidently  asserts,  at  the 
convention  of  Ilerzberg,  in  1578,  '  I  am  able  to  declare 
most  truly,  that  no  man  was  compelled  to  give  his  signature, 
nor  subjected  to  any  undue  influence.  If  tliis  is  not  true, 
the  Son  of  God  has  not  redeemed  me  with  His  blood.'  In 
consequence  of  this  declaration,  the  opponents  were  chal- 
lenged to  name  but  one  who  had  been  compelled  to  sub- 
scribe, and  they  were  unable  to  do  it;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  was  acknowledged  by  the  theologians  of  Xuremberg  them- 
selves, who  rejected  the  Form  of  Concord,  that  the  signa- 
tures were  obtained  without  compulsion." 

Turning  now  from  the  mode  and  the  heartiness,  to  the 
territorial  extent  of  the  subscription,  we  find  that,  with  a 
few  exceptions  to  be  immediately  referred  to  and  explained, 
the  adoption  of  the  Formula  covers  the  greater  part  of  the 
imperial  Protestant  territories.* 

It  was  ado])ted  in  the  three  Electorates  of  Saxony,  the 
Palatinate,  and  Brandenburg;  the  Duchies  of  Prussia, 
Wuertemberg  and  Mecklenburg;  the  Margravates  of  Kulm- 
bach,  Baireuth,  Ansbach  and  Baden ;  also  in  the  Upper 
Palatinate,  Neuburg  and  Snlzbaeh ;  in  the  Principalities 
of  Brunswick  and  Liineburg,  in  Thiiringia,  Koburg  and 
Weimar,  in  Mompelgard ;  in  the  regions  of  Magdeburg, 
Meissen,  and  Quedlinburg;  in  the  earldoms  of  Henneberg, 


•  Schaff.  in  his  Creeds  of  Christendom  I.  p.  331,  note  3,  S5ays :  "It  was 
adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  Lutheran  principalities  and  state  Churches  in 
Germany  ;  also  by  the  state  church  of  Sweden,  the  Lutherans  in  Hungary,  and 
several  Lutheran  synods  in  the  United  States.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  re- 
jected by  a  number  of  Lutheran  princes."  In  a  footnote,  Schaff  continues: 
"  The  Preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  signed  by  eighty-six  names  representing 
the  Lutheran  state  churches  in  the  German  empire  ;  among  them  are  three 
Electors  (Louis  of  the  Palatinate,  Augustus  of  Saxony,  and  John  George 
of  Brandenburg),  twenty  Dukes  and  Princes,  twenty-four  Counts,  thirty-five 
burgomasters  and  counsellors  of  imperial  cities.  The  Formula  was  also  signed 
by  about  8000  pastors  and  teachers  under  their  jurisdiction.  Including  a 
large  number  of  ex-Philippists  and  Crypto-Calvinists.  who  preferred  their 
livings  to  their  theology  ;  hence  Hutter  was  no  doubt  right  when  he  admitted 
that  many  subscribed  mala  conscientia.  Yet  no  direct  compulsion  seems  to 
have  been  used.  See  Kollner,  p.  5.51.  and  .Tohannsen,  Ueber  die  Untcrschriftrn 
des  ConcordienbuchcSj  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  fiir  histor.  Theologie,  1847, 
No.    1." 


672        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS, 

Oettingeii,  Castell,  Mansfeld,  Hanau,  Hohenlohe,  Barby, 
Gleichen,  Oldenburg,  Hoya,  Ebersteiii,  Limbiirg,  Schonburg, 
Lowenstein,  Keinstein,  Stolberg,  Schwarzburg,  Leiningen, 
and  others.  Also  in  the  cities  of  Liibeck,  Hamburg,  Liine- 
burg,  Regensburg,  Augsburg,  Ului,  Biberach;  Esslingen, 
Landau,  Hagenau,  Rothenburg,  Goslar,  Miihlhausen,  Reut- 
lingen,  Nordlingen,  Halle,  Memmingen,  Hildesheim,  Han- 
nover, Gottingen,  Erfurth,  Einbeck,  Schweinfurt,  Brunswick, 
Miinster,  Heilbronn,  Lindau,  Donauworth,  Wimpfen,  Gin- 
gen,  Bopfingen,  Aalen,  Kaufbeuern,  Kempten,  Issny,  Leut- 
kirch,  Hameln,  and  ISTordheim.  To  these  subsequently  have 
been  added,  Lauenburg  of  Saxony,  Holstein,  Pomerania, 
Krain,  Karnthen,  Steiermark,  and  Hungary.  And  even  in 
Denmark,  where  it  was  once  forbidden  on  pain  of  death, 
it  soon  obtained  a  high  authority,  and  was  really  used  as 
a  symbol  though  not  officially  acknowledged  as  such.  It 
was  also  accepted  in  Pomerania  and  Hornia. 

By  June  1580,  when  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  celebrated  with  a  great  festival, 
eighty-five  Stande  had  signed  it,  and  three  years  later  the 
number  ran  up  to  ninety-six.  Swed(Mi  accepted  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Formula  in  15'J3  in  the  Council  of  Uppsala,  and 
the  Formula  in  l(U7-166o.     Hungary  adopted  it  in  1597. 

We  already  have  alluded  to  the  fact  that  a  united  general 
subscription  to  any  new  confessional  document  is  not  to  be 
thought  of  in  America  to-day ;  ^^  and  that  many  who  ap- 
proved all  the  principles  of  a  document  would,  for  various 
reasons,  fail  to  sign  it.  This  happened  to  some  extent  in  the 
case  of  the  Formula.  Of  those  who  rejected  the  Formula, 
first  come  those  few  states,  which  did  so  for  real  confes- 
sional reasons,  and  which  were  not  Lutheran  at  all  in  their 
convictions,  but  Calvinistic ;  and  of  which  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Formula,  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  peace,  to  rid 
the  Lutheran  Church.     This  was  the  disturbing  element  in 


"  Cp.   the   debates   of   Inter-Synodical    Conferences. 


THE   FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  673 

the  Church,  an  element  which  belonged  elsewhere,  and  which 
the  Formula  of  Concord  placed  elsewhere.  "  It  was  not  a 
loss,  but  a  riddance;  not  a  dismemberment,  but  a  superior 
consolidation,  which  the  Church  effected  by  this  pro- 
ceeding." These  Calvinist  Lutherans  comprised  Anhalt, 
Lower  Hesse  and  Bremen.  Thej  did  the  right  thing  in 
withholding  their  signatures.  Zweibriicken  and  Anhalt 
went  over  bodily  to  the  Reformed  Church  in  1588,  and 
Hesse  followed  in  1604.  The  Palatinate  with  Louis  as 
ruler,  favored  the  Concordia,  but  Louis  died  in  1583,  and 
then  his  successor  Casimir  introduced  the  Reformed  Faith. 

In  Denmark,  which  had  been  free  from  controversy,  the 
Formula  had  a  curious  fate.  The  wife  of  Augustus  of 
Saxony,  it  is  said,  sent  her  brother  Frederick  II.  a  hand- 
somely bound  copy  of  the  Formula ;  but  inspired  by  some 
of  his  theologians,  wlio  were  Philippists  or  Crypto-Cal- 
vinists,  Frederick  not  only  threw  the  book  into  the  fire  with- 
out reading  it  or  having  it  read  by  his  theologians;  but  he 
issued  an  edict  on  July  24th,  forbidding  anyone  to  bring 
a  copy  of  the  book  into  the  kingdom,  on  penalty  of  execu- 
tion and  confiscation  of  property.  Thus  the  legal  suasion 
of  the  ruler,  so  common  in  that  day,  was  not  on  any  one  side 
of  the  question.  Ministers  and  teachers  were  to  be  deposed 
from  office  if  they  were  convicted  of  harboring  a  copy  in 
their  houses.  Yet  the  Formula  "  came  to  be  regarded  in 
Denmark  with  the  highest  reverence ;  and,  in  fact,  if  not 
in  form,  became  a  Symbol  of  the  Danish  Church." 

Then  we  reach  Brunswick,  whose  Duke  Julius  was  most 
active  in  behalf  of  the  Book  of  Concord  in  its  initial  stages, 
and  whose  Corpus  Julium  embraced  everyone  of  the  Sym- 
bolical books  but  the  Formula,  and  who  had  failed  to  sign 
it  for  personal  reasons." 


"  Se^ss. 

"  He  was  greatly  offended  at  Chemnitz  for  having  rebuked  him,  because  he 
allowed  his  son  to  enter  the  Roman  priesthood.  Thus  Julius  was  animated  by 
a  very  "  practical  "  reason  for  being  more  "  liberal  "  than  the  Formula. 


674         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Brunswick  theologians  do  not  object  to  the  article 
on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  Formula,  but  they  desire  that 
the  '  absolute  ubiquity  '  be  not  asserted  (August  loth,  1576)  ; 
and  they  desire  a  General  Synod  to  inquire,  since  the 
communication  is  applied  by  many  to  the  first  genus,  and  the 
others  are  excluded,  whether  the  term  was  used  as  a  "  com- 
mune genus  "  under  which  all  three  were  embraced,  with 
a  special  definition  and  appellation  attributed  to  each  one. 
But  some  of  the  Brunswick  theologians,  with  divines  from 
Goslar,  Gottingen,  and  Hannover  in  lower  Saxony,  ventured 
to  declare : — 

"  We  have  discovered  that,  nearly  throughout,  the  For- 
mula is  word  for  word,  what  was  before  this,  a  year  ago, 
decided  in  these  churches,  and  unanimously  approved,  ex- 
cept some  small  additions  made  in  the  conference  at  Torgau, 
which  were  properly  added  for  elucidation  from  Luther's 
writings,  and  we  declare  that  in  the  churches  we  maintain 
the  doctrines  in  regard  to  controverted  articles  as  they  are 
set  forth  in  this  Formula,  and  therefore  coincide  with,  and 
are  satisfied  with  this  Formula;  it  is  our  purpose  too,  by 
the  help  of  God,  to  adhere  to  the  form  of  doctrine,  and  are 
resolved  not  merely  in  our  ministry,  but  before  our  Chris- 
tian magistrates  so  to  uphold  them,  that  not  only  in  churches 
and  schools,  with  the  present  generation  they  may  be  re- 
ceived, but  that  this  deposit  may  be  transferred  to  pos- 
terity." 

Thus  it  came  about  that  in  that  part  of  Brunswick,  whose 
Confessional  symbol  M^as  the  AVilhelminum,  the  Book  of 
Concord  and  the  Corpus  were  both  received  as  symbolical. 

As  Chemnitz  had  offended  Julius  in  Brunswick,  so  An- 
dreae  had  given  offence "  to  Paul  von  Eitzen.  Ilolstein 
therefore  reports  that  it  does  not  feel  the  need  of  a  new 
symbol  "  because  all  the  controverted  articles  dealt  with  in 


"  Viil.  Losoher  Historki  viotuum.  III,  p.  262  ;  Walch,  Einlt.  in  d.  Rrl. 
Strtgktn.  d.  ev.  L.  Kirche,  IV,  p.  450  ;  Planck,  494 ;  aad  Hutter,  Concordia 
Concors. 


THE   FORMULA    IXTRODUCED.  675 

the  new  Formula  are  clearly  explained  in  the  old  symbols." 
To  show  that  its  faith  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Formula, 
it  offers  its  formula  of  ordination  as  follows : — 


"  I  swear  fourthly,  and  particularly,  that  the  words  of  my  Lord  and  Saviour, 
Jesus  Christ,  in  his  Holy  Supper  and  Testament,  namely,  '  This  is  my  body  which 
was  given  for  you,  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  was  shed  for  you 
and  for  many,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,'  I  hold  and  believe  truly  in  the  simple 
true  sense  of  the  plain  words,  namely  :  that  the  true  actual  body  of  my  Saviour, 
Jesus  Christ,  Who  gave  himself  to  death  for  me  on  the  cross ;  and  the  true  actual 
blood  of  Christ,  my  Saviour,  which  was  shed  for  me,  is  truly  present  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  is  really  distributed  in  every  part  of  the  world,  where  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  administered  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ  and  is  received  by  all 
who  go  to  the  Lord's  table,  as  the  Lord's  words  express.  As  this  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Sacrament  is  explained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the 
Schmalkald  Articles,  and  the  two  Catechisms  of  our  holy  Father  and  Teacher,  Lu- 
ther, which  Confession  and  writings,  I  hold  and  believe  in  this  article,  rightly  and 
truly,  and  obligate  myself,  by  this,  my  oath,  by  the  help  and  grace  of  God,  to 
present  to  my  congregation  the  same  true  simple  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
without  perversion  and  change,  and  to  teach  it  till  my  death.  Sixthly,  and 
specially,  I  hold  and  declare  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists,  and  the  per- 
vertersofthe  Sacrament,  Carlstadtians,  Zwinglians,  Calvinists,  Bezaites,  or  by  what- 
ever name  they  are,  or  may  be  called — in  opposition  to  the  necessity  and  power  of  holy 
baptism,  and  against  the  true  presence,  distribution  and  reception  of  the  true  actual 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper,  wherever  it  is  properly  adminis- 
tered throughout  the  church,  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ — is  wrong, 
false,  untrue  and  deceptive.  But  I  will  help  to  uphold  and  to  propagate,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  Spirit's  aid,  the  unchangeable,  true  doctrine  and  faith  con- 
cerning the  truth  and  Omnipotence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  inseparable 
union  of  His  divine  and  human  natures  in  the  one  undivided  Person  of  Christ, 
and  the  true  actual  presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Holy 
Supper." 


The  Pomeranians,  finally,  who  were  mainly  concerned 
about  the  defence  of  their  Corpus  Doctrin^e,  started  a  diffi- 
culty in  regard  to  the  article  on  conversion,  which  grew  out 
of  a  misapprehension,"  but  professed  themselves  satisfied 
vdth  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Person  of 
Christ ;  only  they  desired  a  very  copious  exposition,  as  they 
belonged    to    the    most    decided    friends    and    defenders    of 


Cp.  J.  G.  Walch,  loc.  cit. 


676        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

church  orthodoxy.     The  Pomeranian  Church  Order  of  the 
year  1563,  confesses: — 

"In  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  it  should  be  taught  harmoniously,  that  we 
receive  in  it  the  true  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  present  in  the  Sacrament,  not  merely  with 
His  grace,  spirit  and  power,  but  really  with  His  body  and  blood,  as  the  words  of 
Christ  express:  'This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood,'  which  believers  receive  to 
life  and  the  unworthy  and  impenitent  to  condemnation." 

Further,  the  Pomeranians  in  the  year  1593  assumed  the 
three  articles  of  the  Formula  of  Concord —  in  respect  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Person  of  Christ,  and  the  election 
of  grace — as  their  standard  in  the  controversies  with  the 
Reformed ;  and  signed  the  whole,  at  a  later  period. 

In  Holstein,  and  in  the  cities  of  Magdeburg  and  Frank- 
furt-on-the-Main  and  ISTuremberg,  some  of  the  Philippists, 
who  were  not  pleased  with  the  Formula  because  the  Me- 
lanchthonian  errors  were  rejected  in  it,  opposed  its  intro- 
duction. These  cities,  with  Strasburg,  Spires,  Worms  and 
Bremen,  felt  hurt  that  they  had  not  been  asked  at  the 
start  to  participate  in  the  work,  and  failed  to  sign,  though 
most  of  them  testified  that  they  were  at  one  in  the  faith 
of  the  Book  of  Concord." 

As  in  Pomerania  and  Holstein,  the  Hesse-Cassel  theo- 
logians are  not  satisfied  with  the  Formula  as  a  Confession. 
They  say:  "Our  churches  do  not  teach  otherwise  .  .  . 
than  that,  in  the  true  use  of  His  Supper,  together  with  the 
bread  and  the  wine  [is]  the  true,  essential,  present  body 
of  Christ  .  .  .  not  nevertheless  .  .  .  in  an  external 
natural,  but  in  an  internal  mode  comprehensible  to  faith 
alone,  by  worthy  and  unworthy  equally,  by  the  worthy  in- 
deed in  the  confirmation  of  faith,  and  tluis  to  their  salva- 
tion; but  to  the  unworthy  to  their  judgment." 

It  was  Crypto-Calvinism  that  kept  part  of  Schleswig,  es- 
pecially the  principalities  of  Liegnitz,  Brieg  and  Wohlau; 

"Muller,  Ewlcit,  p.  CX. 


THE   FOBMULA    INTRODUCED.  677 

also  Hesse-Cassel,  Zweibriickeii,  Xassaii,  Bentheim,  Teck- 
lenburg  and  Solms,  from  signing.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Roman  Catholic  government  in  the  Duchies  of  Cleve  and 
Berg,  in  the  earldoms  of  Mark  and  Ravensberg,  in  the 
Principality  of  Ilalberstadt,  in  Osnabriick,  in  the  region 
of  Ortenburg,  in  Austria  (in  the  beginning),  in  Bohemia, 
and  in  part  of  Schleswig  and  Lausitz,  prevented  the  pastors 
and  schoolteachers  from  signing.'" 

This  then  is  the  remarkable  fact,  that  the  greater  part 
of  those  Lutheran  magistracies  that  declined  to  sigii  the 
Formula  were  satisfied  with  its  doctrine,  and  with  its  con- 
formity to  the  older  Confessions." 

These  objectors  concurred  with  Luther  against  the  doc- 
trine of  synergism  and  in  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
though  in  some  cases  the  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  appeared  too  subtle  to  them,  and  in  others 
there  was  dissatisfaction  that  several  Melanehthonian  ex- 
pressions had  not  been  retained.  Still  others  considered  an 
additional  Confession  unnecessary.  Others  again  declined, 
partly  from  wounded  pride,  and  partly  because,  though 
they  themselves  were  favorable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  For- 
mula, yet  their  leaders  were  Calvinistic. 

This  is  the  conclusion  of  Kolde  (see  close  of  Chapter 
XXYI)  ;  and  also  of  such  widely  differing  investigators  as 
Thomasius,  Planck  and  Kollner.     Says  Thomasius : — 

"  To  this  candid  judgment,  we  annex  that  of  one  of  the 
most  determined  opponents,  Planck,  who  took  pains  to  ex- 
ercise impartiality  towards  all  except  the  Lutherans,  who 
poured  contempt  and  sarcasm  on  the  entire  work  of  pacifica- 
tion, and  knew  how  to  place  it  in  the  most  unfavorable 
light;  this  historian  feels  himself  compelled  to  acknowledge, 
'  It  is  almost  beyond  controversy,  that  in  the  Formula,  in 
every   controverted  doctrine,  precisely  the  view  was   intro- 


'  Muller,  Einleit.,  p.  CIX. 
Kollner,  Die  Symb.  der  LutU.  Kirch.,  Hamburg,  1837,  pp.   556,  573. 


678        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

duced  and  sanctioned,  wliicli  was  most  clearly  sustained 
by  the  Augsburg  Confession,  by  the  Apology  for  it,  by  the 
Schmalkald  Articles,  and  by  the  Catechisms  of  Luther.  At 
most,  the  article  in  regard  to  the  Person  of  Christ  alone 
admitted  of  plausible  doubt,  whether  it  was  presented  in 
the  Formula  as  it  had  been  in  those  writings ;  'but  even  here 
it  was  not  very  difficult,  by  a  succession  of  deductions,  to 
prove  that  it  was  involved  in  them.  (Protest.  Lehrhegr.^ 
vi,  697).' 

"  Little  as  we  approve  of  the  manner  in  which  Planck 
expresses  himself,  we  wished  to  direct  attention  to  this  ac- 
knowledgment, particularly  with  a  reference  to  those  who 
regard  him  as  the  highest  authority  when  he  treats  so 
slightingly,  the  Formula  of  Concord."" 

"  The  symbolical  authority  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
for  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  such,"  says  Kollner,  "  can 
hardly  be  doubted.  By  far  the  largest  part  of  those  who 
regarded  themselves  as  belonging  to  the  Lutheran  Church 
received  it  as  their  Symbol.  And  as,  to  use  the  words  of  the 
Elector  xVugustus,  we  have  no  Pope  among  us,  can  there  be 
any  other  mode  of  sanctioning  a  Symbol  than  by  a  majority  ? 
To  this  is  to  be  added,  and  should  be  especially  noted, 
that  the  larger  part  of  those  who  did  not  receive  it,  objected 
to  doing  so,  not  on  doctrinal  grounds,  but  partly  for  polit- 
ical reasons,  freely  or  compulsorily,  as  the  case  might  be, 
partly  out  of  attachment  to  Melanchthon,  partly  out  of  a 
morbid  vanity,  because  they  had  not  been  invited  early 
enough  to  take  part  in  framing  the  Concordia,  and  had 
consequently  not  participated  in  it,  and  partly  because, 
in  one  land,  those  who  had  the  most  influence  were  Calvin- 
istically  inclined,  although  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy 
approved  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Formula."  '* 

We  have  dwelt  on  the  fact  of  this  heavy  majority  vote 
in   favor  of  the  Formula,   in  reply  to  criticisms  that  the 

^'  Thomasius   Trans.   In  Ev.   Eev.,  II.   218   sqq. 
^' KdJlner,  p.   575    (Trans,   by   PhiUi)  Krauth). 


THE  FORMULA    INTRODUCED.  G79 

Formula  is  not  a  Lutheran  Confession  because  it  was  not 
adopted  universally  in  the  Church.  We  have  tried  to  show 
how  impressive  was  the  extent  of  its  adoption;  and  how, 
if  it  were  a  question  to  be  decided  bv  majorities,'"  its  adop- 
tion could  be  regarded  as  almost  overwhelming.  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  a  Confession  can  never  become  a 
symbol  of  the  Church  by  a  majority  vote.  The  Confessional 
principle  is  one  of  conscience,  and  the  conscience  of  the 
minority  is  not  to  be  overruled  by  that  of  the  majority. 

Still  further,  the  Confessional  principle  is  the  truth  of 
Scripture;  and  agreement  in  it  is  not  to  be  reached  by  a 
majority,  or  even  by  a  unanimous  vote.  The  Confession 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  wluit  it  is,  not  because  Lutherans 
have  agreed  to  make  it  so,  but  because  Scripture  has  made 
it  so.  The  Lutheran  Confession  cannot  be  altered,  modi- 
fied or  abrogated  by  any  part  or  by  the  whole  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  any  oge  or  any  country.  "  If  all  our  gen- 
eral bodies,  .  .  .  were  to  unite  in  a  unanimous  rejection 
of  some  distinctive  feature  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  the 
Reformation  period,  they  could  not  change  the  faith  and 
confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  would  simply  dem- 
onstrate that,  in  such  action,  these  bodies  were  no  longer 
Lutheran,  but  had  broken  with  the  unity  of  the  Lutheran 
Church."  "" 

What  we  have,  therefore,  discussed  here  is  simply  the  his- 
torical question  of  the  extent  of  the  adoption  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  and  not  the  supposition  that  that  extent  could 
become  the  determinative  of  its  validity.  If  the  Formula 
really  embodied  the  Lutheran  principle,  and  yet  failed 
of  a  majority  adoption,  it  would  nevertheless  be  a  true 
Confession  of  Lutheranism,  especially  for  those  who  con- 
fessed it. 

The  effect  of  the  introduction  of  the  Formula  is  impor- 

-"  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  are  not  on  the  same  plane  as  the  Lutheran 
Confessions.  The  mandate  enjoining  subscription  to  the  former  voaa  granted 
by  the  King. 

^  Jacobs,    in  Distinctive   Doctrines,   pp.   95-96.  i 


680        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

tant.  It  separated  out  the  non-Lutheran  elements  from  the 
Lutheran  Church.  It  disposed  of  the  vague  position  of  the 
Philippists ;  and  because  they  were  obliged  to  decide  either 
for  or  against  a  clear-cut  confession,  it  precluded  the  mis- 
understandings and  bitter  controversies  of  the  past  within 
the  Church.  It  thus  solidified  the  Church,  and  prevented 
its  disintegration. 


CHAPTER    XXVIII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

IS  THE  FORMULA  OF  COXCORD  A  CONFESSION  ? 

Who  Made  the  Negative  Reply  ? — Zwinglians.  Calvinists,  Roman  Catholics, 
Philippists,  Church  of  England,  and  Eighteenth  Century  Rationalists — Objec- 
tions Usually  Offered — The  Answer  to  Our  Own  Times  :  The  Formula  Does 
Not  Throttle  the  Freedom  of  the  Twentieth  Century — The  Answer  of  History  : 
The  Formula  is  a  Confession  Historically — The  Answer  to  the  Objection  of 
Multiplicity,  and  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  Sufficient  :  Has  the  Latter 
Sufficed,  and  the  Former  Multiplied  the  Confessions  of  the  Church? 

THE  testimony  in  the  preceding  chapters  of  this  book 
has  gradually  been  leading  up  to  one  question:  Is 
the  Formula  of  Concord  a  true  Confession  ?  A  negative 
reply  was  sounded  loudly  from  the  beginning,  by  Ursinus/ 
the  pupil  and  friend  of  ]\telanchthon,  and  the  friend  of 
Calvin,  by  the  Philippists,"  by  Roman  Catholics,'  later  on, 
conjointly  by  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists — and  by  Hospinian  * 


'  Admonitio  Christiana  de  libro   Concordice,   1581. 

-  The  Anhalt  Opinion,  1581  ;  Reply  of  the  Bremen  Preachers,  1581  ;  Irenaeus, 
Examen,  1581  ;  Ambrose  Wolff,  History  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

'  Cardinal  Bellarmin,  Judgment  on  the  Book  of  Concord,  Cologne,  1589 
(Controversies,  IV). 

*  Beza,  Refutatio  dogmatis  de  ficticia  carnis  Christi  omniprcBsentia.  Rud. 
Hospinian,  Concordia  Discors  (Zurich.  1607). — This  bitter  polemic  was  pre- 
ceded by  a  folio  in  1602,  De  origine  et  Progressu  Controversies  SacravientaricB 
de  Ccena  Domini  inter  Lutheranos,  Ubiquistas  et  Orthodoxas  quas  Zwinglianas 
sen  Calvinistas  voca7it  which  readers  will  not  find  overflowing  with  love  for 
the  Lutherans  ;  and  was  followed  by  his  Sacrce  Scripturce,  orthodoxis  symboUs, 
toti  antiquitati  puriori,  et  ipsi  etiam  Augustanw  Confessioni  repugnantia,  in 
1609.  This  work  introduced  heavy  controversy.  Hospinian  was  answered  by 
Hutter,  from  Wittenberg  in  1614,  in  the  folio,  Concordia  Concors.  H.  L.  J. 
Heppe.  Geschichte  der  lutherischeti  Concordienformel  und  Concordie ;  also  the 
latter's  Die  Entstehung  und  Fortb'ddung  des  Luthertums  und  die  kirchlichen 
Bekenntniss-Schriften   desselben   von    1548-1576,    Cassel,   1863. 

681 


683         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

esj)ecially, — by  the  Church  of  England  people,"  and  then 
still  further  re-echoed  by  both  Synergistic,  Pelagian  and 
rationalist  historians  and  symbolical  writers ; '  and  has,  in 
these  latter  times,  been  ringing  again  in  the  ears  of  the 
Church.  It  declares  in  substance :  "  The  Formula  of  Con- 
cord is  a  theological  form,  a  dogmatic  treatise,  a  commen- 
tary, the  shibboleth  of  an  extreme  party,  but  it  is  not  a 
Confession !  " 

OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   FORMULA. 

When  we  ask  the  reasons  assigned  for  excluding  the  Form- 
ula from  a  Confessional  position,  we  find  many.  The  Con- 
cordia is  not  a  true  Confession,  it  has  been  said,  because  it 
fixes  doctrine  in  a  scholastic  frame,  and  therefore  constricts 
the  truth.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  a  Church  of  freedom 
and  of  progress.  The  Word  of  God  in  the  Church  can  not 
be  bound,  especially  not  in  this  Twentieth  Century.  The 
world  has  learned  to  look  to  development  rather  than  to 
dogma. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Formula  is  not  a  true  Confes- 
sion, it  is  said,  because  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches  of  the 
ability  of  Christ  to  be  omnipresent  in  His  human  nature 
is  so  unscriptural  and  (what  is  more  to  the  objector)  so 
incredible  to  human  reason^  that  it  cannot  be  true. 

More  than  this,  the  Concordia  is  not  unanimously  re- 
garded as  a  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  large 
parts  of  the  Church  ignore  or  repudiate  it.  And,  after  all, 
the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  one  great  Confession  of  the 
Church,  and  is  sufficient  for  its  confessional  needs.  The 
tendency  to  multiply  symbolical  writings  should  be  dis- 
couraged.     The   Formula   has   added   greatly   and   unneces- 


'  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England  sent  embassadors  to  the  Elector  Augustus  and 
several  of  the  Evangelical  Estates,  to  head  off  what  she  supposed  would  be  a 
condemnation  of  the  English  Church  ;  and  also  delegates  to  the  Reformed 
Convention  at  Frankfurt-on-the-Main    in    1577. 

•  G.  J.  Planck,  Geschichte  der  Entstehung  .  .  .  unseres  Prnt.  Lehr- 
hegriffs  .  .  .  bis  zur  Einfilhrung  der  Concordienformel,  Leipz.  1791-1800. 
cp.  also  such  writers   as  Mosheim  and  Gieseler. 


THE   FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         683 

sarily  to  the  bulk  of  our  Confessions.  In  creeds,  as  in  all 
other  axioms,  the  rule  of  paucity  should  prevail. 

Still  further,  the  Formula  is  no  Confession  because  there 
was  no  sufficient  Providential  stress,  no  trying  inner  need, 
and  no  outer  crisis  at  hand,  sufficiently  grave  to  justify  its 
appearance;  and  the  means  used  to  gain  subscription  to  it, 
were  not  such  as  the  Church  can  approve. 

Finally,  objection  is  made  to  the  use  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  as  a  Confession  of  the  Church  because  it  does 
not  really  present  Lutheran  doctrine  in  its  broadest  extent, 
for  Melanchthon  and  the  Melanchthonians  were  slighted 
in  it.  It  is  claimed  also  that  the  subjects  distinctively 
treated  in  it  are  not  properly  Confessional  subjects ;  that  the 
points  of  difference  which  it  touches  are  too  fine  and  hair- 
splitting to  be  a  part  of  the  Evangelical  faith ;  that  the 
method  which  it  employs  is  too  Romanistic  and  too  scholastic. 
And  it  is  suggested,  in  general,  that  the  Sixteenth-Century 
spirit  of  theology  which  it  breathes  is  not  suitable  for  the 
Confessional  use  of  the  Church  to-day. 


THE    EIJCLIGHTENMENT    OF    THE    AGE. 

Dwelling  for  a  moment  on  the  last  of  these  objections,  no 
one  can  deny  that  during  the  past  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  the  human  mind  has  been  exceedingly  active.  More 
discoveries  and  more  thorough  investigations  of  every  de- 
partment of  science  were  made  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 
than  in  all  the  ages  that  preceeded  it.  The  confining  bonds 
of  the  traditional  knowledge  that  has  been  handed  down  to 
us  from  the  ancients  have  been  broken,  and  we  are  living  in 
a  new  era  of  thought  and  life. 

But  we  are  not  living  in  a  new  era  of  revelation  from 
God.  If  we  believe  that  the  full  Gospel  has  been  revealed 
and  preserved  to  us  in  the  Scripture,  we  must  admit  that 
the  progress  of  humanity  does  not  apply  to  the  content  of 


684         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

our  faith,  no  matter  how  much  it  may  be  possible  to  make 
improvement  in  form.  With  J.  A.  Seiss  we  exclaim,  "  We 
should  like  to  know  who  has  invented  improvements  on 
Christianity ! ''  ' 

"  Hav^  we  really,"  said  Charles  F.  Schaeffer,  "  made  such 
progress  in  the  discovery  of  truth  since  the  era  of  the  Re- 
formation, that  we  understand  the  Scriptures  more  thor- 
oughly than  those  who  framed  the  Symbolical  Books  ? 
W^hen  Luther  and  his  associates  were  prepared  to  surrender 
their  lives,  but  not  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  the  Cate- 
chism, had  these  men  of  faith  and  prayer  discovered  treas- 
ures of  divine  truth  of  less  extent  and  less  value  than  we 
possess  in  modern  times  ?  When  the  Elector  Augustus  with 
holy  fervor  prayed  to  God  that  the  authors  of  the  Concord- 
Formula  might  be  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  prep- 
aration of  that  admirable  work,  was  his  prayer  for  the  il- 
lumination of  the  Spirit  less  efficacious  than  modern  prayers 
are  ?  If  the  writers  of  the  Symbols  were  unworthy  of  re- 
gard, or  are  erroneous  in  their  exhibition  of  truth,  who  are 
the  men  that  are  more  competent  to  unfold  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  ?  What  palliating  features  have  they  discovered 
in  man's  corruption,  in  more  recent  times  ?  What  useful 
changes  do  they  suggest  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  ? 
What  improvement  do  they  ]iropose  in  our  old  doctrine  of 
justif  ^.ation  by  faith  ?  What  more  ready  access  to  the 
throne  of  grace  have  they  discovered  ?  Are  we  wiser,  more 
holy,  richer  in  divine  grace,  more  useful  through  the  in- 
spiration of  the  ^spirit  of  the  times'  than  our  pious  fathers 
were  ?  We  are  weary  of  the  superior  intelligence  of  the 
Kineteenth  Century  in  matters  of  Christian  faith." " 

The  content  of  God's  Word  to  man,  and  of  man's  saving 
faith   in   Christ,   does   not  change;   but,   like    Christ,   it   is 


^  Ev.  Rev.,  IV,   p.  20. 
'lb.,  I,  p.   482. 


THE   FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         685 

"  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever." '  And  even 
the  sound  old  forms,  in  so  far  as  they  embody  the  true  de- 
velopment of  the  Church  in  its  witness  to  the  Gospel  are 
to  be  held  fast  to  and  appropriated.  Nicholas  Murray  But- 
ler, President  of  Columbia  University,  has  defined  educa- 
tion as  "  the  appropriation,  by  the  individual,  of  the  spir- 
itual possessions  of  the  race."  The  appropriation  of  the 
spiritual  possessions  of  the  Church,  in  her  Testimony  to 
the  truth  which  is  i)reser\'ed  for  the  future  by  the  mainten- 
ance of  stable  Symbols,  that  embody  these  Scri))tural  pos- 
sessions, is  the  Church's  first  and  most  important  duty 
toward  the  rising  generation. 

The  modern  radical  spirit  which  would  sweep  away  the 
Formula  of  Concord  as  a  Confession  of  the  Church,  will 
not,  in  the  end,  be  curbed,  until  it  has  swept  away  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  ancient  Confessions  of  the 
Church — yea,  not  until  it  has  crossed  the  borders  of  Scrip- 
ture itself,  and  swept  out  of  the  Word  whatsoever  is  not  in 
accord  with  its  own  critical  mode  of  thinking.  The  far- 
sighted  rationalist  theologian  and  Dresden  Court  preacher, 
Ammon,  grasped  the  logic  of  a  mere  spirit  of  progress,  when 
he  said :  "  Experience  teaches  us  that  those  who  reject  a 
Creed,  will  speedily  reject  the  Scriptures  themselves." 
With  the  radical  Church  in  America,  progress  has  already 
ceased  to  be  a  question  of  Creeds,  but  has  become  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  Scripture  itself. 

A  recent  writer,  replying  to  an  epigrammatic  statement 
of  the  position  we  are  discussing,  viz.,  that  "  The  Lutheran 
ecclesiastical  sun  did  not  stand  still  in  1580,"  correctly 
points  out,  "  that  the  sun  did  not  stand  still  on  the  25th 
of  June,  1530 ;  and  that  the  implied  certainty  that  modern 
Christian  thought  cannot  express  its  faith  in  the  categories 


» Our  apprehension  of  the  content  changes ;  but  it  grows  deeper  with  our 
submission  to  the  Word,  and  more  shallow  from  our  exaltation  of  our  own 
intelligence.  Our  development  of  Scriptural  Truth  is  al^o  enriched  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  Word  in  the  Church  ;  but  this  Ik 
an  organic  inner  unfolding,  and  not  an  external  and  critical  overturning  of 
the  old  Faith. 

47 


686        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

of  mediaeval  and  primitive  thought  tells  just  fifty  years 
harder  against  the  Augustana,  and  more  than  a  thousand 
years  more  against  the  Nicene  Creed."  "  Certainly/'  it  says, 
"  there  are  some  things  in  Christian  thinking  that  have  the 
attribute  of  stability,  some  things  that  cannot  be  shaken.  .  . 
No  one  who  is  qualified  to  pronounce  judgment,  believes 
that  the  theological  sun  stood  still  in  1580  or,  further  back, 
in  1530.  There  is  but  one  authentic  account  of  the  sun 
standing  still,  and  that  was  a  miraculous  occurrence  recorded 
in  the  book  of  Joshua."  " 

Sartorius  "  points  out  that  the  obligation  of  the  Sjonbol- 
ical  Books,  and  our  duty  of  co-witnessing  with  them  in  the 
testimony  of  the  truth,  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  our 
developing  the  Christian  faith.  This,  he  says,  is  shown  by 
the  Formula  of  Concord  itself.  That  document  takes  pains 
to  exhibit  the  order  of  the  formation  of  the  symbols,  as  the 
result  of  a  great  process  of  spiritual  progress.  They  are 
testimonies  and  declarations  of  the  faith,  showing  how,  at 
any  time,  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  understood  and  inter- 
preted on  controverted  articles,  and  the  doctrines  contrary 
thereto  rejected  and  condemned  by  those  who  then  lived. 

The  giving  up  of  these  symbols  by  the  friends  of  light  and 
progress  has  in  the  past  been  a  sad  relapse  from  the  religion 
of  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament,  into  the  religion  of  the 
Old,  or  still  deeper,  into  that  of  the  natural  man;  and  has 
attempted  to  make  null  and  void  the  mighty  spiritual  move- 
ment, which  flows  through  all  ages  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  has  preserved  its  great  results  in  the  Confessions  that 
mark  its  most  significant  epochs.  "  As  if  these  men  of 
progress  were  the  first  to  be  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  to 
understand  the  Scriptures,  and  to  define  what  Christianity 
is,  they  have  cut  off  the  entire  organism  of  the  doctrinal 


'"We  might  add  that  while  the  earth  (not  the  sun)  does  move,  it  does  so 
only  in   its  orbit. 

■"  Veber  die  Nothwcndigkeit  und  Verbindlichkeit  der  kirchlichen  Glaubens- 
bekcnntnisse,  von  Dr.  Ernst  Sartorius,  General  superintendent  der  Provinz 
Preuszen.   Stuttgart:   Verlag   von   S.   G.  Liesching,    1845,   p.    59. 


THE   FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         687 

development  of  the  Church,  to  reduce  all  God's  truth  to  a 
few  simple  and  general  sentences."  '' 

Sartorius  proceeds  to  say  that  the  advance  from  one  sym- 
bol to  another  has  not  come  to  a  necessary  stop,  but  '*  that 
there  is  still  room  for  further  development,  as  new  spiritual 
movements  in  or  out  of  the  Church  may  render  necessary. 
Xew  symbols  were  added  to  the  early  ones,  and  the  occasion 
may  arise  for  adding  to  and  defining  the  symbols  which  we 
now  possess.  .  .  .  The  truth  must  ever  be  brought  forward 
in  forms  more  definite  against  error,  and  be  established 
against  shift ings  and  change,  and  have  the  reasons  as  well 
as  the  consequences  of  its  own  statements  further  explained. 
In  a  word,  it  must  live,  and  live  on  in  its  confessors  as  a 
common  testimony  of  the  fellowship  of  Spirit  and  truth 
among  Christian  believers.  .  .  . 

"  The  obligation  of  the  symbols  involves  neither  a  dead 
stability,  nor  a  backward  movement  towards  inadequate  or 
extinct  forms  of  the  past.  Just  as  certainly  as  the  history 
of  the  Church  has  not  remained  stationary  for  the  last 
eighteen  centuries,  so  certainly  has  she  not  yet  reached  a 
point  upon  which  she  may  rest  without  advances.  Thus 
the  church  connects  stability  with  progress,  and  the  old  is 
united  with  the  new  as  in  one  family."^' 


''- Ev.  Rei\,  IV,  p.  27.  The  last  statement  above  sufficiently  describes 
Denney's  surprising  and  superficial  attempt  in  1908  to  make  the  Christian 
Confession  more  brief  than  the  Apostles'  Creed  by  eliminating  all  reference 
to    the    Holy   Spirit. 

Canon  Henson,  at  the  National  Episcopal  Congress,  Boston,  1909,  said : 
"  The  old  ruthless  doctrine  which  separated  Christianity  sharply  from  all 
other  religions,  and  limiting  the  notion  of  divine  revelation  solely  to  the 
religion  of  Christ,  cannot  maintain  its  ground.  Either  all  religions  exhibit  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  none.  The  difference  between  them  is  one  of 
degree,    not   of  kind. 

"  The  machinery  of  religion — priesthood,  sacraments^  liturgies,  ascetic  dis- 
ciplines— is  everywhere  similar,  showing  plainly  that  these  have  their  origin 
in  common  needs  rather  than  in  any  'pattern  in  the  mount'  supernaturally 
communicated   to   the   founders   of   the   Church. 

"  There  is  in  the  world  a  force  superior  to  man,  yet  kindred  with  him, 
which  forever  makes  appeal  to  him,  which  wins  his  free  allegiance  and  trans- 
forms him  visibly.  The  holy  Spirit  of  God  has  been  active  in  the  world  since 
men  were  ;  humanity  is  unthinkable  apart  from  His  influence.  Every  religion 
worthy  the  name  is  His  origin,  addressing  itself  to  the  conscience,  reordering 
and  exalting  conduct,  making  men,  under  whatever  descriptions  they  may  pass, 
'friends  of  God  and  prophets.'  "  Thus  does  modern  Christianity  progress  to 
naturalism. 

"C'p.   Ev.  Rev.   IV,   p.   26. 


688         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

THE   QUESTION    OF    HISTORY. 

Tip  to  this  point,  we  have  been  considering  the  objection 
made  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  a  Confession,  on  the 
ground  that  the  wider  twilight  of  the  Twentieth  Century 
cannot  be  bound  by  the  narrower  noon  of  the  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury. But  this  is  a  theoretical  objection.  Let  us  pass  to 
the  solid  ground  of  history. 

Though  the  Confessional  development  of  the  Church  has 
not  come  to  a  stop  with  the  year  1580,  it  nevertheless  left 
an  ineradicable  inarh  of  importance  on  the  dial  at  that 
point  in  the  history  of  Christianity.  If  the  question,  "  Is 
the  Formula  of  Concord  a  Confession?"  is  to  be  answered 
from  and  according  to  the  record  of  history,  that  answer 
will  be,  "  It  is  a  Confession."  There  is  no  doubt  on  this 
point.  It  is  the  historical  fact.  The  Formula  of  Concord 
cannot,  historically,  be  denied  to  be  the  Confession  of  those 
who  wrote  it — and  they  were  not  the  least  of  the  men  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  the  Sixteenth  Century, — and  the  Con- 
fession also  of  some  other  Lutherans  who  joined  with  them 
in  this  Confessional  utterance.  The  Formula  may  not  be 
your  Confession,  or  my  Confession.  It  may  not  be  the 
Confession  of  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  because  it  was 
agreed  to  and  signed  by  a  very  large  majority  of  the  Luther- 
ans of  that  day — since  we  at  least  do  not  admit  the  Amer- 
ican principle  of  majority-rule  in  deciding  the  Confessional 
matters  of  the  Lutheran  Church;  but  this  much  cannot  be 
gainsaid,  that  if  those  people  who  pnt  the  Formula  forth, 
and  uttered  it  "with  mouth  and  heart,"  made  it  their  Con- 
fession, it  is  their  Confession.  It  may  be  a  poor  Confession, 
a  clumsy  Confession,  an  injudicious  Confession,  but  these 
defects  could  not  deprive  it  of  its  Confessional  character. 
History  shows  that  it  was  given  to  the  world  as  a  Confession, 
and  the  question  is  a  historical  one. 

The  men  Vvdio  felt  its  need,  the  men  who  wrote  it,  the  men 
who  intended  it  to  fill  a  want,  and  the  men  who  accepted  it, 


THE   FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         689 

gave  it  forth  as  their  Confession.  They  say,  "  We  believe, 
teach  and  confess  that  the  only  rule  and  standard  are  the 
Scriptures.  We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  there  is  a 
distinction  between  man's  nature  and  original  sin.  Our  doc- 
trine,  faith  and  confession,  is  that  the  understanding  and 
reason  of  man  are  blind.  We  unanimously  believe,  teach 
and  confess  that  Christ  is  our  righteousness.  And  so  the 
confession  of  faith  runs  through  all  the  articles.  And,  last 
of  all,  they  "  desire  to  testify  that  this  is  our  faith,  doctrine 
and  confession."  "  If  the  Christian  reader  will  carefully 
examine  this  declaration,  ...  he  will  find  that  what  was 
in  the  beginning  confessed,  ...  in  the  comprehensive  sum- 
mary of  our  religion  and  faith,  .  .  .  and  afterward  restated, 
.  .  .  is  .  .  .  the  simple,  immutable,  permanent  truth.'* 

It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact,  then,  that  the  Formula  is 
the  Confession  of  that  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  which 
then  believed  and  now  believes  in  its  doctrines.  It  further 
is  clear  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be  a  Confession  simply 
for  theologians,  but  also  for  every  Christian,  including  the 
laymen  especially.  For  it  says,  "  This  is  a  brief  and  simple 
'explanation  of  the  controverted  articles.  .  .  .  Hence  every 
simple  Christian,  according  to  the  guidance  of  God's  Word 
and  his  simple  Catechism,  can  distinguish  what  is  right  or 
wrong,  where  not  only  the  pure  doctrine  is  stated,  but  also 
the  erroneous  contrary  doctrine  is  repudiated  and  rejected, 
and  thus  the  controversies,  full  of  causes  of  offence,  that 
have  occurred,  are  thoroughly  settled  and  decided." 

But  we  have  more  than  the  testimony  of  the  framers  of 
the  Formula  in  support  of  its  Confessional  character.  There 
is  the  verdict  of  history.  While  general  historians,  and 
others,  may  have  doubts  as  to  the  appropriateness  of  the 
form  and  extent  of  the  matter  as  Confessional,  there  is 
little  or  none  as  to  the  nature  of  the  matter  as  Confessional : 


"Book   of   Concord,   p.   539. 
E.  g.,  the   last   words  of  the   close  of  the   Epitome. — Boole  of  Concord,   r. 


528. 


690        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  in  dealing  with  the  Formula  as  a  historical  factor, 
they  accredit  it  as  Confessionah  "  The  striving  toward 
nnity  was  justified,  and  necessary.  The  Church  felt  that 
a  Confession  was  necessary  in  order  to  conserve  the  fruits 
of  the  Reformation,"  says  Hauck.  "  The  Formula  of  Con- 
cord at  once  assumed  a  position  among  the  regulative  sym- 
bols of  Lutheranism,"'  "  says  Seeberg.  '^  The  amplest  and 
most  explicit  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions,"  says  Jacobs. 
"  The  Formula  of  Concord  is,  next  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, the  most  important  theological  standard  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church," "  says  Schaff,  who  justifies  the  great  ampli- 
tude of  his  treatment  "  by  the  intrinsic  importance  of  the 
Formula."  ^*  Frank  in  the  S chaff -Hevzog,  terms  it  "  the  last 
of  the  six  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church." 
Schaff,  in  his  Creeds  of  Christendom,  terms  it  "  The  last 
of  the  Lutheran  Confessions ;  "  and  a  well-known  American 
theological  cyclopedia  "  terms  it  '^  the  seventh  and  last  sym- 
bolical book  of  the  Lutheran  Church." 

Its  Confessional  importance  speaks  for  itself  when  a  Pres- 
byterian,"" though  not  friendly  to  it,  devotes  no  less  than 
eighty-two  pages  of  his  Creeds  to  it  and  its  exposition.  Such* 
testimony  is  weighty  when  we  consider  that,  in  the  same 
work,  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself  receives  only  eighteen 
pages,  the  Apology  two  pages,  the  Tetrapolitana  five  pages, 
the  Heidelbei-g  Catechism  twenty-five  pages,  the  Thirty- 
Xine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  thirty-two  pages, 
the  Westminster  Confession  fifty-six  pages,  and  the  Apostles' 
Creed  ten  pages.  While  the  Confessional  importance  of  a 
work  is  not  to  be  measured  mechanically,  and  while  the  lack 
of  literature  in  the  English  language  led  the  author  in  ques- 
tion to  some  degree  of  fulness  in  his  treatment  of  this  Sym- 


^' Hist,  of  Doctrines,  II,  382. 

»'  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  338. 

"J6.   340. 

^'  McCUntock  d  Strong,  in   loco. 

"  Schaff. 


THE   FOnMULA   A    CONFESSION.         691 

bol,  yet  the  fact  that  liis  methodical  biit  unfriendly  judg- 
ment has  given  the  Formula  its  proper  Symbolical  position 
in  the  plan  of  his  work  and  has  felt  it  wise  to  afford  this 
Confession  more  space,  for  the  edification  of  American  read- 
ers, than  he  allots  to  any  other  Creed  in  Christendom,  should 
be  sufficient  testimony  as  to  the  Confessional  importance 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  the  Symbolical  literature  of 
the  Lutheran  Church. 

Continuing  to  speak  historically,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  Formula  of  Concord  is  the  Confession  of  the  largest 
Lutheran  body"  in  America,  and  of  the  general  body  with 
which  the  writer  of  this  volume  is  connected,  which  'also 
constitutes  no  small  part  of  the  Church  in  America.  Of 
its  theologians,  C.  P.  Krauth  ^  has  called  the  Formula,  "  Tlie 
amplest  and  clearest  Confession  in  which  the  Christian 
Church  has  ever  embodied  her  faitli."  And  H.  E.  Jacobs  "** 
has  stated  it  to  be  "  The  amplest  and  most  explicit  of  the 
Lutheran  Confessions." 


MULTIPLICITY    OF    CONFESSIONS. 

But  we  are  met  l)y  another  question :  Is  the  Formula  of 
Concord  needed  as  a  Confession  ?  Is  not  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession in  itself  sufficient  to  embody  and  represent  and  per- 
petuate the  doctrine  of  the  Lutlieran  Churcli  ?  Why  mul- 
tiply the  symbols  of  the  Church  ?  Why  render  the  appre- 
hension of  our  faith  more  difficult  and  cumbersome  by  so 
largely  increasing  the  Confessional  literature,  as  is  done 
when  we  accept  the  whole  Book  of  Concord  ?  We  have  in 
it  a  complicated  body  of  human  testimony  nearly  as  great 

"  "  Ich  erkenne  die  drei  Hauptsymbole  der  [alten]  Kirche,  die  ungeanderte 
Augsburgische  Confession  und  deren  Apologie,  die  Schmalkaldischen  Artikel, 
die  beiden  Catechismen  Luthera  und  die  concordien  Formel  fiir  die  reine, 
ungefalschte  Erklarung  und  Darlegung  des  gottllchen  Wortes  und  Willens, 
belvenne  mich  zu  denselben  als  zu  meinen  eigenen  Bekenntnlssen  und  will 
mein  Amt  bis  an  mein  Ende  treulich  und  fleissig  naeh  denselben  ausrichten. 
Dazu  Starke  mich   Gott  durch  seinen  heiligen   Geist !   Amen." 

-==  Con.  Ref.,  p.  302. 

^  Lutheran    Cyclopedia,    Art.    on    Concord. 


692        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

in  bulk,  as  the  ISTew  Testament  itself.  Why  not  on  the 
grounds  of  simplicity,  paucity,  fundamental  generalization, 
and  uniformity  confine  ourselves  to  a  single  Confession, 
especially  since  that  Confession  happens  to  coincide  with  the 
public  birth  of  the  CUiureh,  and  state  the  doctrines  of  the 
church  in  such  a  way  that,  barring  the  question  of  varia- 
tions, all  Lutherans  can  stand  upon  it? 

If  we  are  sure  that  a  single  Confession  is  sufficient  to 
embody  the  faith  in  such  way  that  it  will  be  clearly  under- 
stood, and  never  be  misunderstood  by  any  members  of  the 
Church,  it  will  certainly  be  most  desirable  to  have  only 
one*  Confession,  and  that  as  brief  as  possible.  One  might 
almost  go  as  far  as  to  say,  with  all  reverence,  that  if  it  were 
possible  for  the  Lord  to  have  revealed  to  us  His  Gospel  so 
clearly  that  every  one  would  apprehend  it,  and  that  no 
Christian  would  ever  misunderstand  it,  in  a  single  book  of 
the  Scripture,  it  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  have  only 
one  such  book,  of  small  compass,  practical,  popular,  and 
easy  to  refer  to.  Though  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
possible  with  regard  to  the  source  of  Confession,  viz.,  the 
Scriptures ;  is  it  not,  perhaps,  possible  with  reference  to  the 
Confessions  themselves  ?  Could  not  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
or,  if  you  will,  the  JSTicene  Creed,  have  served  the  purposes 
of  all  the  oecumenical  creeds;  and,  in  truth,  with  possibly 
a  little  amplification,  would  it  not  serve  the  purposes  of  all 
Christendom  to-day  ? 

We  think  not.  It  is  not  the  way  of  history  and  life,  to 
have  short,  ready-made  rules  drop  down  from  Heaven,  or 
out  of  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  bring  uniformity,  sim- 
plicity, and  clearness  to  the  faith  of  the  human  race.  God 
has  seen  fit  to  so  order  our  development  that  our  Confes- 
sions are  attained  through  dearly-bought  historical  ex- 
perience. History  teaches  that  Confessions  which  are  drawn 
up  theoretically,  without  the  marks  of  the  fiery  historical 
trial  through  wliich  they  have  passed,  prove  themselves  to 
be  as  worthless  as  paper.    And  the  experience  of  the  Church 


THE   FORMULA    A    CON  FE  Sty  ION.         G93 

will  show  that  it  is  impossible  to  cut  away  the  genuine  Con- 
fessional shoots  of  any  part  or  age  of  the  Church  for  the 
purpose  of  concentrating  our  utterance  upon  a  single  symbol, 
in  the  interest  of  paucity  and  clearness,  however  thoroughly 
desirable  that  interest  may  be. 

In  accordance  with  the  law  of  history,  genuine  Confes- 
sions are  usually  so  concrete  in  intention,  or  so  ground  down 
by  attrition,  before  they  became  a  real  symbol  of  the  Church, 
that  they  completely  meet,  in  outer  form,  and  in  the  point- 
ing of  their  substance,  only  the  wants  that  are  felt  in  their 
day.  Xew  wants,  not  covered,  nor  contemplated,  nor  fore- 
seen in  the  day  of  the  original  Confession  will  grow  up ;  and, 
if  it  should  so  occur  that  any  of  these  new  wants  become 
pivots  on  which  the  future  teaching  of  the  Church  can  be 
diverted  to  this  side  or  that,  a  new  conflict  will  arise  in  the 
Church  and  a  new  Confession  may  develop  out  of  the  con- 
flict. 

That  the  Augsburg  Confession  did  not  sufiice  to  main- 
tain the  pure  doctrine  even  in  the  early  and  golden  period 
of  Protestantism,  is  shown  by  the  dreadful  conflicts  that 
arose  on  its  basis,  and  by  the  setting  up  of  over  twenty 
exceedingly  bulky  corpora  doctrinse  in  addition  to  the  Con- 
fession. Instead  of  restraining  the  formation  of  parties  and 
the  partizan  spirit  within  the  Church,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession became  the  subject  of  the  most  excruciating  con- 
troversies that- agitated  the  Church.  It  failed  to  prevent  the 
polemic  extravagances  of  the  Gnesio-Lutherans,  the  com- 
promises of  the  Philippists,  and  the  approaches  to  the  Re- 
formed doctrine  by  the  Crypto-Calvinists. 

"  In  this  lies  the  supreme  significance  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  and  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  that  through  it  the 
Lutheran  Church  maintained  her  right  to  stand  for  herself 
(Selbststiindigkeit)  as  over  against  Calvinism.  When  we 
look  at  the  quality  of  doctrine  represented  by  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  and  at  the  wide  circle  within  which  this  became 
the  norm,  we  perceive  that  it  was  not  some  theological  party 


694        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

that  had  forced  its  views  upon  the  Lutheran  Church,  but 
that  the  germ  of  a  consensus  which  had  been  really  at  hand 
had  attained  to  its  unfolding  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  It 
represented  a  Melanchthonian  Lutheranism."  '*  ''It  estab- 
lished the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology  forever  as  the 
Confession  of  the  Church  as  a  whole.  .  .  .  Most  surely 
will  time  bring  all  that  love  our  Church  to  feel,  that  without 
the  second  w^ar  and  the  second  peace,  the  war  and  peace  of 
Conservation,  the  richest  result  of  the  first,  the  war  of 
Reformation,  would  have  been  lost.  Hopeless  division, 
anarchy,  ruin  and  absorption,  were  the  perils  from  which 
the  Formula  of  Concord  saved  our  Church,"  ^ 

That  the  golden  ideal  of  a  single  Confession  for  the  Church, 
does  not  meet  the  Confessional  necessity  of  Lutheranism,  is 
shown  again  very  clearly  by  the  experience  of  the  Church 
in  America  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.  There  is  a  striking 
article  in  one  of  the  old  numbers  of  the  Evangelical  Revieiv 
under  the  heading  "  Dr.  Schmucker's  Lutheran  Symbols," 
in  which  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  great  leader  of  the  English 
Lutheran  Church,  in  the  Second,  Third,  and  Fourth  De- 
cades of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  in  all  his  ecclesiastical 
publications,  from  the  appearance  of  his  Popular  Theology 
in  1830,  really  made  the  attempt,  directly  or  indirectly,  ''  to 
introduce  a  new  Confession  of  faith  into  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  the  Lhiited  States."  The  whole  of  this  American 
effort  "  culminated  and  took  its  most  distinct  form  in "  a 
confessional  statement,  still  very  famous  by  name. 

The  Review  article  affirms  that  the  ncAV  Confession,  "  as 
originally  prepared,  not  only  contemplated  but  almost  in  so 
many  words  proposed  a  division  of  the  Lutheran  Church." 
According  to  the  view  of  the  writer  of  this  Confession,  one 
of  the  reasons  for  the  proposed  introduction  of  the  symbol 
was  that  the  Lutheran  Church  was  rendered  odious  because 
it  had  been  represented  as  holding  certain  doctrines  of  the 

-*  Seeberg,    in   Hauck. 

"  Krauth,  in  Con.  Ref.,  pp.  327-328. 


THE  FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         095 

Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  other  Symbolical  Books,  and 
that  it  was  well  to  show  that  the  Lutheran  Church  wished 
to  have  no  connection  with  so-called  "  Old  Lutherans."  " 

In  this  instance,  the  acceptance  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession by  a  part  of  the  English  Church,  and  the  founding  of 
a  Seminary  upon  it  and  Luther's  Catechism,  did  not  prevent 
an  earnest  and  brilliant  man  within  the  Church  from 
throwing  his  full  life-force  against,  and  from  promulgating 
teachings  at  the  fountain-head  which  were  contrary  to,  the 
true  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Had  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  been  re-enforced  by  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, while  it  might  not  have  prevented  the  activities  just 
mentioned,  it  would  have  brought  on  a  crisis  and  a  reac- 
tion that,  in  our  judgment,  would  long  ago  have  removed 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  land  far  from  the  boundary 
line  of  Confessional  obscurity. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  alone  has  not  sufficed  in  the 
history  of  Lutheranism.  This  is  shown,  again,  in  the  fact 
that  the  most  active  Confessional  symbol  in  the  Church,  the 
one  which  has  formed  the  witness  among  the  people,  has 
been  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism.  If  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  sufficient,  as  a  Confession,  what  shall  be  done  with 
Luther's  Catechism,  which  is  not  a  private  commentary  or 
a  dogmatic,  nor  even  a  mere  text-book  based  on  the  Con- 
fession, but  which  is  prior  in  origin  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  is  circulated  far  more  widely  than  the  Con- 
fession itself;  and  which  in  some  respects  gives  a  clearer 
insight  into  the  Lutheran  principle  of  Law  and  Gospel,  and 
into  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,  than  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  itself. 

If  the  principle  of  simplicity  and  paucity  be  really  the 


"'  In  this  proposed  Confession,  the  Preface  tells  us  that  "  Any  district  Synod 

connected  with   the  Synod  may,  with   perfect   consistency,    adopt  this 

Platform,  if  the  majority  of  her  members  approve  of  the  synodical  disclaimer 
contained  in  part  II."  In  an  Appendix  to  the  third  edition,  which  was  o 
variata  from  the  first  edition,  instead  of  "  the  former  Sj'mbolical  Books  " 
we  find  a  "  Definite  Platform,  being  the  doctrinal  basis  or  Creed,  con- 
structed  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Synod." 


696         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

essential  thing  in  Confessions,  the  real  reduction  might, 
after  all,  have  to  be  to  the  Catechism, — not  because  it  is 
Luther's  work,  as  over  against  Melanchthon's,  although  the 
fact  that  it  is  Luther's  work  is  not  a  special  discredit  to  it; 
but  because  it  is  both  the  Scripture  and  the  Lutheran  Con- 
fession in  a  nut-shell.  It  is  the  real  epitome  of  Lutheran- 
ism  in  the  simplest,  the  most  jiraetieal,  the  most  modern  and 
living,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  most  radical  form.  It 
steers  clear  of  all  obscure  historical  allusions,  it  contains  no 
condemnatory  articles,  it  is  based  on  the  shortest  and  the 
oldest  of  the  oecumenical  symbols.  It  is  not  a  work  for 
theologians,  but  for  every  Lutheran;  and  it  is  not  nearly  as 
large  as  the  Augsburg  Confession.  If  our  Confessional 
basis  is  to  be  determined  on  the  principle  advocated,  by  the 
objectors  to  the  Formula,  the  one  Symbol  of  the  Church  will 
be  the  Small  Catechism,  and  not  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

But  we  have  never  heard  of  any  objection  to  either  of 
the  Catechisms  of  Luther,  as  Symbols  of  the  Church.  His- 
torically, in  fact,  there  has  not  been  objection  to  any  of  the 
Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church  (barring  the  Schmalkald 
Articles),  except  to  the  Formula  of  Concord.  After  all,  it 
cannot  be  the  principle  of  Confessional  simplicity  that  is 
the  real  motive  for  ruling  out  the  Formula.  Historically, 
there  is  no  justification  for  the  emphasis  of  the  principle  of 
paucity.  ]^o  less  than  five-sevenths  of  the  Book  of  Concord 
was  accepted  by  both  ]\relanchthonians  and  Lutherans,  often 
together  with  a  great  deal  of  additional  material,  before  the 
Book  of  Concord  appeared. 

The  Melanchthonians  especially  were  willing  to  increase 
the  bulk  of  their  Confessional  writings.  They  did  not  ob- 
ject to  the  Apology  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  is 
five  times  as  large  as  the  Confession,  and  which  is  no  less 
than  one  and  one-fourth  times  as  large  as  the  whole  Formula 
of  Concord,  and  over  five  times  as  large  as  the  Epitome  of 
the  Formula.  The  Corpus  Julium  contained  the  whole 
Book  of  Concord,  except  the  Formula ;  and,  so  far  as  we 


THE   FORMULA    A    CONFESSION.         G97 

recall,  there  was  not  a  single  State  of  Germany  or  surround- 
ing countries,  in  the  Lutheran  or  in  the  Beformed  Church, 
which  accepted  simply  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  no 
other  additional  symbolical  writings. 

The  principle  of  an  unnecessary  multiplication  of  docu- 
ments (which  we  accept),  is  as  valid  in  the  confessional  field 
as  it  is  every^vhere  in  the  field  of  public,  solemn  testimony. 
It  is  a  general  law  which  applies  not  only  to  the  public  wit- 
ness of  the  Church,  but  also  to  the  documentary  develop- 
ment of  the  constitution  of  the  State,  and  to  all  important 
historico-practical  entities.  So  averse  is  the  English  spirit  to 
the  multiplication  of  documents,  that  large  parts  of  the 
English  law  are  still  not  formulated.  But  that  which  has 
been  formulated  historically,  under  the  stress  of  crisis, 
whether  it  be  the  Magna  Charta,  or  such  a  document  as  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  abides,  and  is  not  reduced 
on  the  score  of  simplicity. 

The  princij^le  of  unnecessary  multiplication  does  not 
really  apply  to  changing  the  verdict  of  time,  but  to  the 
creation  of  new  symbols  in  the  present.  In  this  sense,  the 
Conservative  Be  formation'^  declares,  that  the  Lutheran 
Church,  as  a  whole,  objects  to  the  multiplication  of  the  num- 
ber or  extension  of  the  bulk  of  creeds.  "  For  nearly  three 
centuries,  no  addition  has  been  made  to  her  Symbolical 
Books;  and  although  it  is  quite  possible  that,  for  local  rea- 
sons, parts  of  our  Church  may  enunciate  more  largely  par- 
ticular elements  of  her  faith,  we  do  not  think  it  likely  that 
the  Lutheran  Church,  as  a  whole,  will  ever  add  to  her  Sym- 
bols, not  merely  anything  which  can  have  such  relations  to 
them  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  has  (which  would  be  im- 
possible), but  not  even  such  as  the  Formula  of  Concord  has." 

Speaking  of  the  bulk  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  the  Con- 
servative Beformation  further  says :  "  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, the  Smaller  Catechism,  and  the  Epitome,  may  be 

«  p.  273. 


698         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

regarded  as  the  texts,  respectively,  on  which  the  Apology, 
the  Larger  Catechism,  and  the  Declaration  are  Com- 
mentaries. The  whole  of  these  books  can  be  embodied  in  a 
fair  type  in  an  ordinary  duodechno  volume.  When  we  think 
of  the  space  which  a  minister  covers  with  the  words  in  which, 
during  a  single  year,  he  states  the  sacred  doctrines — when 
we  look  at  the  many  volumes  in  which  particular  authors 
have  presented  the  results  of  their  labors  on  Scripture,  .  .  . 
it  hardly  seems  an  excessive  demand  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  that  she  should  ask  ministers  to  study  one  small 
volume  to  reach  the  official  expression  of  her  judgment  on  the 
greatest  questions,  which  pertain  to  pure  doctrine,  sound 
government,  and  holy  life.  Yet  the  Book  of  Concord  has 
been  denounced  on  the  ground  that  it  contains  so  much. 
Be  it  right  or  wrong,  be  its  teachings  truth  or  falsehood, 
its  bulk  is  sufficient  to  condemn  it." 

The  Epitome  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  is  the 
declarative  portion  of  the  Confession,  is  only  six  or  seven 
pages  longer  than  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  could  be 
published  in  a  small  pocket  volume  not  larger  than  the 
ordinary  Luther's  Small  Catechism.  The  oecumenical 
Creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, could  be  published  in  a  small  work  in  large  clear  type 
which  could  readily  be  carried  in  the  pocket.  With  the 
growth  of  historical  and  institutional  Christianty,  and  es- 
pecially with  the  growth  of  Protestantism,  Avhere  the  temp- 
tation constantly  arises  of  every  mind  becoming  a  law  unto 
itself,  the  complexity  of  actual  theological  thought  increases. 
Truth  and  error  both  are  more  fully  unfolded ;  and  to  cover 
the  more  complicated  situation,  the  older  symbols  must  be 
explicated.  A  primitive  people  can  do  with  the  multipli- 
cation table,  and  a  very  simple  slate  and  pencil ;  but  where 
the  astronomic,  economic  and  commercial  problems  of  life 
rise  in  bewildering  confusion,  and  in  larger  proportions,  it 
is  necessary  to  have  a  whole  arithmetic,  systems  of  book- 
keeping, tables  of  logarithms,  and  even  very  elaborate,  yet, 


THE   FORMULA   A    CONFESSION.         699 

after  all,  really  simplifying  cash-registers  and  adding  ma- 
chines. Xo  one  will  assert  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
contains  the  fully  developed  doctrine  of  the  evangelical 
Church.  It  contains  the  doctrine  developed  sufficiently  to 
meet  the  situation  then  in  hand  with  Rome. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE    ANSWER    OF    A    PEOVIDEXTIAL    OPJGIX 

TO  THE  QUESTIONS  IS  THE  FORMULA  A 

CO^s^FESSIOX  ? 

A  Crying  Need  :  the  Confusion  of  the  Age,  the  Failure  of  the  Melanchthonian 
Answer — A  Definite  and  Sufficient  Call — The  History  of  its  Origin  and  Com- 
pletion in  the  Light  of  the  Call. 

IS    THE    HAND    OF    PROVIDENCE    MISSING? 

THUS  far  we  have  confined  onr  inquiry  as  to  the  Con- 
fessional nature  of  the  Formula  of  C^oneord  to  the 
verdict  of  history,  and  to  a  consideration  of  the  principle 
of  an  unnecessary  multiplication  of  symbols.  But  now  we 
are  met  by  still  another  objection  urged  against  the  Confes- 
sional character  of  the  Formula.  It  has  been  assumed  by  us 
all  along  that  the  occasion  which  called  forth  the  Formula 
was  adequate.  "  But,"  we  are  asked,  "  was  this  really  a 
fact  ?"  Was  there  a  need,  a  providential  stress  in  the 
Church,  at  the  time  of  the  framing  of  the  Formula,  suffi- 
ciently critical  to  call  it  forth ;  and  was  the  occasion  of  its 
issue  of  such  a  character  as  to  warrant  its  being  considered 
a  real  Confession? 

In  reply  to  this  inquiry,  it  must  be  said  that  there  was  a 
crying  need.  Very  few  men  are  able  to  realize  the  internal 
confusion  into  which  the  Lutheran  Church  had  been  thrown 
in  the  latter  half  of  tlie  Sixteenth  Century.     The  battle  with 

700 


FORMULA'S   PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       701 

external  foes  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  Century,  which  stirred 
all  Europe,  which  made  the  castle-door  at  Wittenberg  ring, 
which  caused  the  world  to  thrill  at  the  declaration  of  Lu- 
ther at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  and  which  inspired  the  Pro- 
testants with  faith  in  their  cause  as  brought  to  the  Em- 
peror in  their  Confession  at  Augsburg,  was  serious  enough; 
but  the  later  situation  was  relatively  worse. 

Internal  demoralization,  all  wall  agree,  is  the  very  worst 
foe  against  which  any  large  and  imperfectly  organized  body 
has  to  contend.  "  The  superstitions  of  centuries  had  been 
over-thrown,  and  the  temple  of  a  pure  Scriptural  faith  was 
to  be  reared  upon  their  ruins.  Every  man  was  a  polemic 
and  a  builder.  It  was  an  age  in  which  extravagances  rose  in 
hostile  pairs.  Two  errors  faced  each  other,  and  in  their 
conflict  trampled  down  the  faith  which  lay  prostrate  between 
them.  The  controversies  wdiich  followed  Luther's  death,  ar- 
rested the  internal  development  of  the  Church.  The  great 
living  doctrines,  which  made  the  Reformation,  were  in  dan- 
ger of  losing  all  their  practical  power  in  the  absorption  of 
men's  minds  in  these  controversies.  The  Church  was  threat- 
ened with  schisms.  Her  glory  was  obscured.  Her  enemies 
mocked  at  her.  Her  children  were  confounded  and  sad- 
dened. Crafty  men  crept  in  to  make  the  Lutheran  Church 
the  protector  of  heresy.  There  was  danger  that  the  age 
which  the  Conservative  Reformation  had  glorified,  should 
see  that  grand  work  lost  in  the  endless  dissensions  of  embit- 
tered factions. 

"  Hence  it  is,  that  while  the  larger  part  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  received  the  Formula  with  enthusiasm,  some  did 
not  accept  it.  For,  while  the  Confessions  set  forth  the  faith 
of  our  Church,  in  her  antagonism  to  the  errors  outside  of 
her,  the  Formula,  in  the  main,  is  occupied  in  stating  the 
truth,  over  against  the  errors  which  had  crept  into  her. 
Romanism,  with  its  artifices,  had  misled  some.  The  ardor 
of  controversy  had  led  others,  as,  for  example,  the  great  and 

noble  Flaeius,  to  extravagance  and  over-statement.     The  Lu~ 

18 


702         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tlieran  Church  was  assailed  by  intrigue,  Jesuitical  device, 
and  conspiracy.  False  brethren  endeavored  by  tricks  of  false 
interpretation  to  harmonize  the  language  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  with  their  errors.  The  mighty  spirit  of  Luther 
had  gone  to  its  rest.  Melanchthon's  gentleness  sometimes 
degenerated  into  utter  feebleness  of  purpose,  and  alike  to 
the  Romanists  and  the  sectarians  he  was  induced  to  yield 
vital  points. 

"  Xot  yet  compacted  in  her  organism,  living  only  by  her 
faith,  the  Lutheran  Church  was  called  to  meet  an  awful 
crisis.  K'o  man  who  knows  the  facts,  will  deny  that  some- 
thing wortliy  of  the  responsibility  involved  in  such  great 
and  cogent  issues  had  to  be  done." 

Even  Harnack,  whom  none  will  suspect  of  speaking  in  the 
interests  of  a  strict  Lutheran  Confessionalism,  has  this  to 
say '  of  the  Lutheran  Church  prior  to  the  appearance  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord :  "  Round  about  1570,  it  seemed  tluit 
Lutheranism  was  done  for.  It  was  everyw^here  outside 
threatened  by  Calvinism,  and  then  split  up  by  strife  and 
reaction."  Prof.  Tressler  adds,  "  In  face  of  such  a  situa- 
tion and  to  meet  it  with  Scripture  wisdom,,  the  Formula  in 
1577  appeared." 

We  have  tried  to  present  a  picture  of  the  confusion  that 
reigned  in  the  Church  after  the  death  of  Luther  and  later 
of  Melanchthon,  and  before  the  appearance  of  the  Formula, 
to  show  the  crying  need  of  some  common  principle  of  strength 
and  order.  But  it  was  more  than  a  matter  of  mere  confu- 
sion that  threatened  the  Lutheran  Church.  There  was  a 
real  peril — at  least,  historians  of  every  school,  with  ITarnack, 
tell  us  so — of  Lutheranism  falling  into  pieces;  and  it  must 
be  conceded  that  the  good  wrought  by  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession  in    15r;0  would  have  been  verv  limited   if,   half  a 


'  Condensed  from   Con.  Ref.,  pp.    306-307. 

'  Lectures   on   the  History   of   the   Reformation,    quoted   by   Tressler,   one    or 
his  hearers. 


FORMULA'S   PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       703 

century  later,  the  evangelical  principle  had  disintegrated 
into  hopeless  and  waning  Protestant  individualism. 

Schaff,  in  opening  his  discussion  of  tlie  origin  and  occa- 
sion of  the  Formula  puts  the  deep  necessity  of  the  situation 
in  a  nutshell.  He  says,  "  The  Form  of  Concord,  the  last  of 
the  Lutheran  Confessions,  completed  in  15TY,  and  first  pub- 
lished in  1580,  is  named  from  its  aim  to  give  doctrinal  unity 
and  peace  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  after  long  and  bitter  con- 
tention. The  work  was  occasioned  by  a  series  of  doctrinal 
controversies,  which  raged  in  the  Lutheran  Church  for  thirty 
years  with  as  much  passion  and  violence  as  the  trinitarian 
and  christological  controversies  in  the  Xicene  age.  They 
form  a  humiliating  and  unrefreshing,  yet  instructive  and 
important  chapter  in  the  history  of  Protestantism.  The  free 
spirit  of  the  Reformation,  which  had  fought  the  battles 
against  the  tyranny  of  the  Papacy  and  brought  to  light  the 
pure  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  gave  way  to  bigotry  and  intole- 
rance among  Protestants  themselves.  Calumny,  abuse,  in- 
trigue, deposition  and  exile  were  unsparingly  employed  as 
means  to  achieve  victory.  Religion  ^\as  confounded  with 
theology,  piety  with  orthodoxy  and  orthodoxy  with  an  ex- 
clusive confessionalism.  Doctrine  was  overrated,  and  the 
practice  of  Christianity  neglected.  The  contending  parties 
were  terribly  in  earnest,  and  as  honest  and  pious  in  their 
curses  as  in  their  blessings ;  they  fought  as  if  the  salvation 
of  the  world  depended  on  their  disj^utes.  Yet  these  contro- 
versies were  unavoidable  in  that  age,  and  resulted  in  the 
consolidation  and  completion  of  the  Lutheran  system  of 
doctrine.  All  phases  and  types  of  Christianity  must  de- 
velop themselves,  and  God  overrules  the  wrath  of  theolo- 
gians for  the  advancement  of  truth."  ' 

Krauth  puts  the  matter  only  a  little  more  strongly  when  he 
says,  "  Hopeless  division,  anarchy,  ruin  and  absorption 
were  the  perils  from  which  the  Formula  of  Concord  saved 


3  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,    pp.   258,   259. 


704        THE   LU  THE  BAN   CONFESSIONS. 

our  Church."  *  The  Roman  Church  had  made  persistent  use 
of  every  opportunity  to  recover  her  outer  hold  and  regain 
her  inner  power  over  the  Protestant  world.  The  territorial 
expansion  of  Protestantism  had  ceased.  The  spiritual  life 
and  inner  progress  of  Protestantism  had  come  to  a  stand- 
still. There  was  no  longer  any  anchorage  to  which  the 
Church  could  cling.  Unless  the  principles  of  the  Evangelical 
Faith  could  be  gathered  into  consistency,  and  set  forth  in  a 
clearer  light  than  that  which  now  was  shining  down  from  a 
former  generation,  there  would  be  no  teaching  sufficiently 
steady  to  counterbalance  the  inner  strengthening  of  the 
Roman  Church,  which  had  come  to  it  as  a  result  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  which  it  had  gained  through  the 
founding  of  the  Society  of  Jesus.  The  ceaseless  conflict  be- 
tween Lutherans,  which,  even  in  exhaustion,  showed  no  signs 
of  a  springing  concord,  was  causing  the  faith  of  the  Reforma- 
tion to  crumble  to  dust  Even  the  political  authorities  most 
keenly  realized  the  necessity,  if  religion  was  to  be  preserved, 
of  having  the  theologians  bring  their  desultory  antagonisms 
to  an  end,  and  work  out  some  permanent  stauflard  Mdiich 
should  become  the  firm  and  consistent  Faith  of  the  Church," 
The  very  tendency,  already  alluded  to,  of  undue  multipli- 
cation of  symbols,  complained  of  to-day  by  those  who  would 
cut  the  nerve  of  historic  continuity  in  the  vain  attempt  to 
attain  ideal  brevity  and  simplicity  in  the  expression  of  the 
Confessional  principle,  was  threatening  the  Church  at  the 
time  when  the  Formula  was  adopted.  There  Avas  crying 
need  of  a  Confession  that  would  compress  and  unite  the 
many  Confessional  statements  springing  up  in  Post-Refor- 
mation Protestantism.  One  of  the  Formula's  leading  ob- 
jects, and  one  of  those  in  which  it  was  very  successful,  was 
the  elimination  of  bulk  and  the  sim])]ification  of  the  great 
mass  of  material  that  had  sprung  up  in  luxuriant  profusion 
round    about   and    all   over   the   orig-inal    Confession.     Who 


<  Con.    Ref.,    p.    328. 

•Tschackert,  Die  Enstehung  dcr  2uth.  .  .     Eirchenlehrc,  pp.  570,   571. 


FORMULA'S   PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       T05 

can  dispute  the  statement  of  Krauth  that  "  we  have  twenty- 
eight  large  volumes  of  Melanehthon's  writings — and  at  this 
hour,  impartial  and  learned  men  are  not  agreed  as  to  what 
were  his  views  on  some  of  the  profoundest  questions  of 
Church  doctrine,  on  which  Melanchthon  was  writing  all  his 
life?'" 

Who  can  question  the  fact  that  much  that  Melanchthon 
wrote  could  be  taken  in  two  senses,  and  that  his  name  was 
used  to  shield  that  of  which  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  he  would  have  approved  ?  "  Whatever  may  be  the 
meaning  of  Melanehthon's  words  in  the  dis23uted  cases,  this 
much  is  certain,  that  they  practically  operated  as  if  the  worse 
sense  were  the  real  one,  and  their  mischievousness  was  not 
diminished  but  aggravated  by  their  obscurity  and  double 
meaning.  They  did  the  work  of  avowed  error,  and  yet  could 
not  be  reached  as  candid  error  might."  ' 

We  have,  then,  in  the  Melanchthonian  principle  as  em- 
bodied in  Confessional  print  at  this  era  the  two  qualities  of 
great  bulk  and  great  weakness.  The  Corpus  Philippicum, 
preceding  the  Book  of  Concord,  was  much  more  bulky  than 
the  Book  of  Concord  and  is  composed  entirely  of  Melaneh- 
thon's writings,*  many  of  them  his  private  writings,  con- 
taining much  matter  that  was  cumbrous  and  unsuited  to  a 
Confession. 

In  addition  to  these,  the  Latin  Philippicum  contains  the 
Augustana,  1542 ;  the  Apology,  the  Eepetition  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  for  the  Council  of  Trent;  the  Loci  Theo- 
logici,  the  Examen  Ordinandorum,  the  Answer  to  the  Bava- 
rian Articles,  A  Confutation  of  the  Error  of  Servetus,  and 
Melanehthon's  reply  to  Stancar.  This  constitutes  a  folio  of 
over  one  thousand  pages.  The  Corpus  Julium,  another  rival 
of  the  Book  of  Concord,  as  we  have  seen,  contained  every- 
thing found  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  except  the  Formula, 


•  Con.  Ret;  p.   291. 

'  7b.,  291. 

8  Except  the  three  oBCumenical  Creeds. 


706        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  in  its  place  included  a  work  by  Chemnitz  and  one  by 
Urbanns  Rhegius! 

When  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  spoken  of  as  a  good  pri- 
vate commentary,  but  too  bulky  to  be  a  public  confession, 
it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  Melanchthonian  ideas  on  this 
subject  which  preoccupied  the  ground  before  the  Formula 
of  Concord  came  into  existence. 

Had  not  the  Melanchthonian  situation  failed  so  com- 
pletely, in  its  confessional  development  of  the  Church  and  its 
doctrine,  it  is  a  question  whether  the  men  who  undertook 
to  frame  a  clear,  strong,  brief  Form,  to  bring  harmony,  would 
have  been  impelled  to  supply  the  crying  need.  The  friends 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  "  were  embarrassed  and  con- 
founded, and  its  enemies  delighted  and  encouraged,  by  per- 
ceiving endless  diversities  of  statement  in  the  editions  of 
books,  rapidly  succeeding  each  other,  books  which,  in  their 
first  form,  Luther  had  endorsed  as  of  Canonical  purity  and 
worthy  of  immortality.  The  very  Confessions  of  the 
Church,  determined  by  her  authorities,  and  signed  by  her 
representatives,  were  amended,  enlarged  here,  abridged 
there,  changed  in  structure  and  in  statement,  as  the  restless 
spirit  of  refining  in  thought  or  style  moved  Melanchthon. 
All  his  works  show  the  tinge  of  his  mind  at  the  time  of 
their  issue,  whether  affected  by  his  hopes  that  Rome  would 
be  softened,  or  roused  by  the  elusive  prospect  of  real  union 
with  the  less  radical  part  of  the  Zwinglians.  Melanchthon 
fell  into  a  hallucination  by  which  his  own  peace  of  mind 
w^as  wrecked,  his  Christian  consistency  seriously  comprom- 
ised, the  spirit  of  partisanship  developed,  the  Church  dis- 
tracted and  well  nigh  lost.  This  was  the  hallucination  that 
peace  could  be  restored  by  ambiguous  formulas,  accepted  in- 
deed by  both  parties,  but  understood  in  different  senses." ' 

Here  the  great  error  of  pure  Protestantism,  as  accepted 
in   Melanchthonianism,   comes  to   light.      It   is   the   liberty 


'Con.    lief.,   p.    290. 


FORMULA'S   PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       707 

claimed  for  the  individual  mind  to  modify  tlie  Church's 
faith  in  accordance  \vith  its  own  personal  views,  without 
clearly  and  formally  submitting  such  proposed  modification 
to  the  Church  for  acceptance  and  rejection,  and  without  wil- 
lingness to  assume  the  consequences  if  there  be  rejection. 
To  the  Melanchthonian  mind,  the  right  of  the  individual  to 
make  intellectual  progress  for  himself  and  for  the  Church, 
overtops  all  rights  which  are  conjoint  and  historical.  To  a 
conservative  evangelical  Protestant,  this  private  right  can- 
not be  carried  out  to  the  detriment  of  other  existing  rights 
in  the  body  of  the  Church,  without  giving  all  such  rights 
ample  notice  and  their  just  power  to  act.  For  the  individual 
in  a  communion  to  act  in  and  for  the  communion  as  he 
rhinks — when  the  communion  and  he  differ  in  their  think- 
ing— without  first  influencing  the  communion  to  change  their 
thinking  to  his  thinking,  nay,  even  without  notifying  the 
communion,  is  a  lack  of  ethical  integrity  in  dealing  with 
that  which  is  outside  of  ourselves  and  to  which  we  have  no 
right.'"  The  Melanchthonian  jirinciple  did  not  recognize 
that  the  rights  of  individual  Protestantism  cease  where  the 
rights  of  collective  Protestantism  begin. 

It  was  this  mistaken  habit  of  regarding  a  Confession  as 
belonging  to  a  changeable — or  progressive,  if  you  prefer — 
individual,  to  be  modified  according  to  new  views  and  cir- 
cumstances, rather  than  as  necessary  testimony,  reflecting  the 
unchangeable  Word  of  God  in  the  Church,  that  brought 
multiplication,  bulk,  confusion  and  peril  into  the  Church ; 
and,  in  consequence  of  which,  the  great  and  true  Confes- 
sional Avitness  at  Augsburg  had  not  been  able  to  maintain 
either  the  pure  doctrine  or  the  united  Church. 


'"  It  may  be  urged  that  Luther  was  more  of  a  Protestant  in  this  individual 
sense  than  was  Melanchthon  ;  and  that  he  eared  less  for  the  old  historical 
forms  than  his  coadjutor  who  was  always  seeking  some  outer  nexus  with 
the  visible  Church  of  the  past.  But  this  objection  falls  before  the  fact  that, 
while  Luther  cared  less  for  the  forms,  and  was  more  individualistic  as  to  the 
visible  nexus,  he  was  conservative  to  the  core  on  the  substance.  There  was 
no  rationalistic  coefficient  in  his  faith.  Melanchthon  on  the  other  hand  was 
constantly  seeking  internal  or  rational   freedom,  with  outer  conformity. 


708        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS, 

This  fact  is  admitted  by  Schaff,  who  says :  "  Melanchthon, 
.  .  .  Avith  .  .  .  more  logic  and  sj'stem  than  Luther,  and 
Math  a  most  delicate  and  conscientious  regard  for  truth  and 
peace,  yet  not  free  from  the  weakness  of  a  compromising 
and  temporizing-  disposition,  continued  to  progress  in  the- 
ology, and  modified  his  views  on  two  points — the  freedom 
of  the  will  and  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist; 
exchanging  his  Augustinianism  for  Synergism,  and  relax- 
ing his  Lutheranism  in  favor  of  Calvinism;  in  both  instances 
he  followed  the  ethical,  practical,  and  unionistic  bent  of  his 
mind.  .  .  .  These  changes  were  neither  sudden  nor  arbi- 
trary, but  the  result  of  profound  and  constant  study,  and 
represented  a  legitimate  and  necessary  phase  in  the  devel- 
opment of  Protestant  [not  Lutheran]  theology,  which  was 
publicly  recognized  in  various  ways  before  the  formation 
of  the  '  Form  of  Concord.'  "  "  Thus  with  remarkable  ad- 
missions as  to  the  Melanclithonian  principle  does  the  Re- 
formed historian  write,  and  prove  that  the  author  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  made  progress  beyond  the  Confession, 
from  which  it  follows  that  the  Confession  was  not  sufficient  in 
itself  to  maintain  the  Confessional  principle  of  Lutheranism. 

From  each  and  all  of  the  varied  considerations  before  us, 
we  are  led  to  conclude  that  the  crisis  at  hand  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  was  sufficiently  grave  to  demand  and  to  justify  a 
new  Confession  of  the  faith,  ^^"ould  the  authors  of  the 
final  Confession,  men  of  temperate  judgment,  have  denied 
themselves  so  long  and  suffered  so  much;  and  would  the 
Elector  have  expended  so  many  thousand  dollars  in  this  work 
of  sound  unification,  if  the  Melanclithonian  principle  (and 
the  Confessional  corpora  doctrinae)  had  not  demonstrated 
their  inability  to  control  the  Church,  and  if  a  serious  crisis 
were  not  impending? 

Let  us  briefly  sum  up  the  crying  necessity,  the  inability 
of  the  helpless  Church  to  extricate  herself  from  the  exigency, 


"  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  261. 


FORMULA'S   FROYIDENTIAL    CALL.       709 

if  Providence,  by  changing  the  historical  situation,  bv 
raising  up  men  of  insight,  perseverance,  prudence,  and  love 
for  the  truth,  and  by  removing  obstacles  on  every  side,  had 
not  ushered  in  a  new  and  better  era. 

First  of  all,  the  Formula  was  a  spiritual  necessity.  The 
Melanchthonian  principle  had  been  operative  now  for  a 
whole  generation.  It  had  failed  at  Augsburg  in  1530;  but 
still  its  methods  of  dealing  with  the  trutli,  with  the  Con- 
fession, with  men,  with  public  policies,  and  with  ecclesias- 
tical difficulties  had  continued  to  assert  themselves.  These 
methods,  though  wearing  the  mantle  of  peace,  had  brought 
no  peace  anywhere.  On  every  hand,  and  in  every  quarter, 
there  was  nothing  but  war;  and  as  Soeberg  himself 
declares,  if  the  Melanchthonian  principle  had  continued  in 
direction  of  affairs,  the  conflict  in  the  Lutheran  Church  would 
have  been  eternal.  For  the  suppression  of  parties,  and 
strife,  and  intestinal  conflict,  and  peace  of  mind  and  heart 
in  the  Faith,  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  a  necessity.  As 
Seeberg  says,  "  It  succeeded  in  gradually  restoring  the  peace 
of  the  Church."  '' 

A  new  Confession  was  also  a  vital  necessity.  The  right 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  self -existence  had  been  questioned 
from  the  start  by  Kome,  and  the  progress  of  that  life,  as  it 
struck  out  on  its  new  pathway,  after  clearing  itself  from 
Roman  bondage,  was  eagerly  watched  by  the  old  enemy. 
And  thei'e  was  a  similar  eagerness  on  the  part  of  the  other 
Protestant  parties,  Avho  liad  not  been  favored  as  the  Lutheran 
Church  was,  at  Augsburg;  and  whose  hope  of  becoming  the 
prevalent  t^^e  of  Protestantism  lay  in  dissipating  the  more 
conservative  elements  of  Lutheranism,  and  in  absorbing  the 
Church  under  their  own  radical  principle.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  Calvinism,  if  it  had  been  successful  in  its  use  of 
the  Melanchthonian  mantle,  in  possessing  itself  of  the  lead- 
ing citadels  of  Lutheranism,  would  have  successfully  united 

"II,   382.  \ 


710         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Protestantism  by  the  destruction  of  the  conservative  princi- 
ple. All  divisions  in  the  Protestant  Church  to-day  may 
be  traced  back  to  this  deepest  one,  and  the  questions  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century  on  this  j)oint  are  the  questions  that  Lu- 
theranism  must  likewise  meet  to-day. 

For  the  Formula  of  Concord,  there  was,  in  the  third 
place,  a  historical  necessity.  This  point  is  emphasized  by 
Soebcrg.  Says  he,  "  A  new  Confession  was  a  historical  ne- 
cessity. .  .  .  There  was  only  this  one  alternative,  either 
to  let  the  division  and  confusion  remain,  or  to  bring  them 
to  an  end  by  confessional  decision  of  the  conditions  of 
doctrine.  The  situation  shown  at  Naumburg,  the  situa- 
tion in  the  institutions  of  learning,  in  the  politics  of  the  day, 
and  in  the  administration  of  the  churches,  showed  how  hope- 
less the  future  was,  without  some  common  standard  of  Lu- 
theran agreement,  which  would  resolve  the  conditions  that 
had  arisen  within  the  Church  after  its  period  of  Reformation 
and  during  its  period  of  reconstruction." 

The  Formida  of  Concord  was  also  a  confessional  neces- 
sity. As  we  already  have  seen,  through  the  multiplication 
of  the  Corpora  Doctrinae,  the  confessional  situation  had  be- 
come so  complicated  as  to  be  quite  intolerable,  and  with 
the  large  number  of  petty  state  churches,  the  frequent  changes 
in  the  rulers  of  the  state,  and  the  religious  confusion  en- 
suing, the  Testimony  of  the  Lutheran  Church  was  brought 
to  the  verge  of  contradiction. 

But,  last  of  all,  a  new  confession  was  necessary  to  up- 
hold the  truth  of  God's  Word.  The  Augsburg  Confession 
had  spoken,  guardedly,  toward  Rome.  The  Apology  had 
spoken  more  fully  toward  Rome.  The  Schmalkald  Arti- 
cles had  spoken  toward  Rome.  Rut  there  was  no  voice 
rising  up  within  the  Church,  as  yet,  to  speak  the  truth 
toward  Protestant  errors  against  the  Word  of  God.  The 
Word  of  God  itself  had  not  yet  been  recognized  as  the  su- 
preme rule  of  faith.  The  doctrine  of  free  grace,  and  of 
Christ  TIiiii<flf,  as  :i]i])lio(l,   in  our  salvation,  in  Word  and 


FORMULA'S   PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       711 

sacrament,  the  whole  essence  of  the  real  Gospel,  as  opposed 
to  the  apprehension  of  Christianity  as  mere  reform  in  body 
and  members,  was  now  at  stake.  God's  Word,  for  which 
so  much  had  been  suffered,  in  order  to  free  it  from  the 
Church's  Word,  was  in  danger  from  the  milder  and  more 
humanistic  apprehension  of  a  new  Protestant  scholasticisn^j. 
With  such  a  crying  need,  the  need  of  the  spirit  for  peace, 
the  need  and  right  of  the  body  to  self-preservation,  the  need 
of  historical  and  confessional  strength,  and,  above  all,  the 
need  of  establishing  the  truth  of  God's  Word  in  Christ,  who 
will  deny  that  the  Formula  of  Concord,  viewed  from  the 
situation  out  of  which  it  arose,  is  a  real  confession  of  the 
Church ! 

WAS   THEEE   A    PROPER    CALL? 

Passing  by  the  need  and  occasion  of  the  Formula,  the  ob- 
jector may  turn  to  criticise  its  Call.  Whence  came  the  au- 
thority to  issue  a  new  Confession?  Who  gave  its  authors 
the  power  to  propose  it  to  the  Church?  Did  its  writers 
really  have  a  sufficient  Call  ? 

The  outer  Call  extended  to  these  men  was  as  clear,  more 
universal,  and  less  individual  than  that  given  to  Luther  to 
nail  up  the  Theses.  We  have  heard  how,  in  the  opinion  of 
its  defenders,  the  Formula  was  examined  in  a  more  thorough 
manner,  and  approved  more  substantially,  than  if  it  had 
emanated  from  a  General  Council  of  the  Church.  The  Call 
of  the  writers,  in  its  deliberateness,  in  its  authoritativeness, 
and  formality,  was  the  greatest  outer  Call  given  to  any  body 
of  Lutherans  since  the  days  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

There  was  no  imperial  Call.  Maximilian  II.,  who 
reigned  as  emperor  of  Germany  from  1564  to  his  death,  Oc- 
tober 12th,  1576,  though  himself  a  Protestant,  or  at  lea^t 
friendly  to  Protestantism,"  dealt  with  the  various  religious 


''  Through  the  Influence  of  his  preceptor  in  youth.  In  156S,  he  granted 
the  Protestants  in  Austria  liberty  to  worship  God  according  to  their  conscience, 
and  commissioned  Chytrapus  to  compose  a  Protestant  liturgy  for  Austria.  He 
opposed  and  restricted  the  Jesuits,  yet  tolerated  tliem  ia  their  influence  in 
his  own  family. 


712        THE   LUTHEBAN   CONFESSIONS. 

parties  iu  the  interests  of  preserving  the  empire,  and  his  de- 
cisions, as  the  Protestants  were  divided,  fell  more  or  less  in 
accord  with  the  majority  of  the  Estates,  which  were  Roman 
in  belief.  Unlike  Charles  V.,  Maximilian  was  too  friendly 
to  Protestantism  to  allow  the  Pope  to  put  the  Protestants 
on  the  defensive,  wdiich  w-as  the  case  in  the  Diet  at  Augsburg, 
and  unlike  the  Saxon  electors,  he  was  too  much  of  a  politi- 
cian to  allow  religion  chief  place  in  his  rule.  Therefore 
there  could  be  no  Imperial  call  to  a  confession."  But  the 
Call  was  issued  by  the  legitimate  successor  of  the  political 
head  of  the  early  Keformation  activity,  by  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  Augustus,*'  the  son-in-law  of  Christian  III.  of  Den- 
mark. There  is  nothing  but  good  to  be  said  of  the  Elector, 
of  his  intention,  and  of  his  Call.  "  The  Elector  was  in 
advance  of  his  time  in  the  principles  of  constitutional  sov- 
ereignty. In  an  arbitrary  age,  he  governed  by  law.  He 
consulted  his  parliament  on  all  great  questions,  and  raised 
no  money  by  taxation  without  their  advice.  His  edicts  were 
so  just  that  he  has  been  called  the  Saxon  Justinian.  His 
subjects  regarded  him  with  peculiar  love  and  reverence.  By 
his  skilful  internal  administration,  he  raised  his  country  far 
above  the  rest  of  Germany,  introducing  valuable  reforms 
both  in  jurisprudence  and  finance,  and  giving  a  decided  im- 
pulse to  education,  agriculture,  and  manufactures.  The 
Dresden  Library  owes  to  him  its  origin,  as  do  also  most  of 
its  galleries  of  arts  and  science. 

"Augustus  bore  a  part  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  worthy 
of  him.  To  meet  the  necessary  expenses  connected  with 
the  Formula,  the  Elector  himself  paid  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  cold.     His  ijifts  and  efforts  were  unceasius:  till  the 


"Maximilian  admonished  Frederick  of  the  Palatinate  to  abandon  Calvinism, 
and  become  Lutheran  again  ;  and  advised  the  upper  Palatine  estates  to  abide 
steadfast   in  the  use  of  the  Augsburg   Confession. 

"  The  statement  made  that  the  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony  subsequently 
joined  the  Church  of  Rome  is  an  error.  Augustus  II.,  who  succeeded  his 
elder  brother  as  Elector  in  1694,  at  the  age  of  twenty-four,  became  a  Roman 
Catholic  in  order  to  gain  the  throne  of  Poland.  His  son,  Augustus  III.,  al.so 
king  of  Poland,  was  brought  up  a  Protestant,  and  became  a  Catholic  on  his 
travels  in  1712,  and  succeeded  his  father  as  Elector  of  Saxony  in  1733. 


FORMULA'S    PROVIDENTIAL    CALL.       713 

great  end  was  attained.  Xoble  and  unsuspicious,  he  had 
been  slow  to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  the  treachery  of  the 
false  teachers,  whose  mischievous  devices  he  at  length  re- 
luctantly came  to  understand.  The  troubles  they  brought 
upon  the  Church  whitened  untimely  the  Elector's  head,  but 
so  much  the  more  did  he  toil  and  pray  till  the  relief  from  the 
evil  was  wrought.  AMiile  the  theologians  were  engaged  in 
conferences,  the  Elector  and  his  noble  wife  were  often  on 
their  knees,  fervently  praying  that  God  would  enlighten  His 
servants  with  His  Holy  Spirit.  In  large  measure,  to  the 
piety,  sound  judgment,  and  indefatigable  patience  of  this 
great  prince,  the  Church  owes  the  Formula  of  Concord," " 
The  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord"  narrates  this  outer 
Call  in  the  words  of  Augustus.     It  says : — 


"And  accordingly,  we,  by  the  grace  of  God,  Duke  of  Saxony,  Elector,  etc., 
after  a  council  held  with  some  other  electors  and  princes  agreeing  with  us  in 
religion,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  godly  design  of  harmony  among  the 
teachers  of  the  Church,  summoned  to  Torgau  in  the  year  1576  certain  theologians 
experienced  and  endowed  with  pre-eminent  learning.  When  they  had  assembled, 
they  conferred  devoutly  concerning  the  controverted  articles  and  the  writing  of 
pacification.  And  prayers  first  having  been  offered,  they  with  extraordinary  care 
(the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  aiding  them  by  his  grace),  embraced  in  a  document  all 
those  things  which  seemed  to  pertain  to  this  deliberation.  Afterwards  this  book 
was  transmitted  to  some  chief  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Electors, 
Princes  and  Deputies,  and  they  were  requested,  with  the  aid  of  the  most  eminent 
theologians,  to  read  it  with  godly  zeal,  to  examine  it,  and  finally,  to  express  their 
judgment  and  the  reasons  therefor  concerning  it  collectively  and  taken  part  by 
part."  '^ 

Much  preparation  for  the  work  of  the  Conference,  or 
Synod,  or  Council,  at  Torgau  had  been  made  at  preliminary 
meetings,  just  as  the  Marburg  and  Schwabach  Articles  had 


^'Hutter,  Cone.  Cone,  ch.  XI;  Anton.,  I,  147,  148;  Kollner,  533;  Krauth, 
Con.  Ref.,  p.   308. 

"  Book  of  Concord,  p.  12.  The  occasion  for  this  Preface,  the  end  in  view, 
and  tlie  manner  of  its  composition,  do  not  in  our  judgment  reflect  upon  its 
testimony  or  its  integrity  of  purpose.  It  is  a  mild,  noble  and  just  document, 
and  its  defense  of  the  Formula  and  of  the  whole  undertaking  is  proper. 

"  Condensed  from  Book  of  Concord,  I,  pp.  12,   13. 


714        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

been  prepared  prior  to  the  Diet  at  Augsburg.  This  pre- 
vious preparation  included  the  Manlbronn  Formula  and  the 
Swabian-Saxon  Formula,  together  with  the  results  of  the 
Convention  at  Lichtenberg. 

The  Convention,  in  pursuance  of  a  Call  issued  by  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  in  Xovember,  after  consultation  v^ith  a 
number  of  the  evangelical  princes  and  theologians,  met  on 
the  Fifteenth  of  February,  1576.  The  Elector  prepared  a 
memorandum  concerning  the  best  means  of  adjusting  the 
controversies.  He  regarded  the  many  corpora  dochinae  ac- 
cepted by  different  countries  as  the  chief  hindrance  to  union, 
and  proposed  that  the  princes  adhering  to  the  x\ugsburg 
Confession  should  appoint  peace-loving  theologians,  with 
lay  counsellors,  to  attend  a  meeting  to  which  each  should 
bring  his  own  corpus  cloctr'mae.  "With  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  a  standard,  a  new  Body  of  Doctrine  should  be  com- 
posed from  these,  which  should  be  made  binding  upon  all 
the  ministers  in  their  countries.  The  conference  was  to 
determine  the  number  of  theologians  to  be  invited  to  partic- 
ipate in  the  work,  the  mode  of  deliberation,  the  part  to  be 
taken  by  the  Estates,  the  articles  to  be  treated,  etc. 

The  Convention  of  Lichtenberg  recommended  the  adop- 
tion of  three  measures  to  promote  peace,  viz. :  1.  The  en- 
tire abandonment  of  all  personal  rivalries  and  complaints. 
2.  The  reuioval  of  all  hindrances  to  harmony,  of  which  the 
Corpus  Doetrinae  Philippicum  was  mentioned  as  one,  and 
certain  publications,  such  as  the  Wittenberg  Catechism,  the 
Consensus  Dresdensis,  through  which  Crypto-Calvinistic 
errors  were  disseminated,  as  another.  Instead  of  the 
Corpus  Philippicum,  the  three  Oecumenical  Creeds,  the 
Augsburg  CiOnfession  Invariata,  the  Apology,  the  two  Cat- 
echisms and  the  Schmalkakl  Articles  were  recognized  as  sym- 
bolical, with  Luther's  Commentary  on  Galatians,  if  any 
desire  to  include  it.  3.  A  conference  of  theologians  is  to 
judge  the  points  in  the  controversy,  according  to  Scripture 
and  the  received  Symbols,  in  the  presence  of  the  electors  and 


FORMULA'S   PliOYIDENTIAL    CALL.       715 

princes.  Chytrseus,  Chemnitz,  iindreae  and  jMarbach  were 
named  as  theologians  well  qualified  for  the  work."  " 

On  May  2Sth,  1576,  the  Elector  as  reconmiended  at  Lich- 
tenberg,  convened  the  Conference,  or  Synod,  at  Torgau.  It 
was  composed  of  seventeen  theologians  from  Saxony,  Bruns- 
wick, Mecklenburg  and  AViirttcmbcrg.  On  June  Tth,  this 
body  completed  the  Torgau  Book.  It  was  then  sent  through 
the  Elector  to  the  princes,  Avho  gave  it  into  the  hands  of  their 
theologians  for  examination  and  criticism.'"  A  committee 
appointed  by  the  Elector  and  the  princes  of  Wiirttemberg 
and  Brunswick  examined  the  criticisms,  and  made  correc- 
tions in  words  and  style,  in  several  separate  revisions. 

Finally  at  Wittenberg,  on  June  15th,  17Y7,  it  \vas  sub- 
mitted, not  to  a  General  Council,  but  in  truly  democratic 
manner^*  to  all  the  teachers  and  ministers  of  the  Church 
for  their  approval  and  subscription.  The  ministers  of  a 
district  w^ould  assemble  in  a  Convention  and  an  appeal  be 
made  to  them  to  subscribe.  The  Preface  thus  describes  this 
procedure : — 

"  Some  of  our  rank  (not  all  of  us  were  able  to  do  this),  have  caused  this  book 
to  be  recited,  article  by  article,  and  distinctly,  to  the  theologians  and  the  ministers 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  schools  collectively  and  individually,  and  have  caused 
them  to  be  excited  to  a  diligent  and  accurate  consideration  of  those  parts  of  the 
doctrine,  which  is  contained  in  it. 

'♦  When,  therefore,  they  noticed  that  the  Declaration  agreed  with  the  Word 
of  God,  and  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  they  gratefully  received  this  Book  of 
Concord  as  expressing  the  genuine  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  approved 
it  and  subscribed  to  it,  and  publicly  bore  witness  concerning  it  with  heart,  mouth 
and  hand.  Where/ore  that  godly  agreement  j's  and  perpetually  will  be 
called,  the  harmonious  and  concordant  Confession  not  only  of  some  few 
of  our  theologians,  but,  in  general,  of  the  ministers  of  our  churches  and 
rectors  of  schools,  one  and  all,  in  our  provinces  and  realms."  " 


^^  Condensed  from  Book  of  Concord,  II,  Jacobs,  Intro.,  pp.  58,  59. 

=»  Yid.  Chap.  XXVI,  p.  657. 

^^  The  wide  range  of  the  preparatory  work  is  further  proof  on  this  point. 
"  From  1558,  at  the  Frankfort  Recess,  to  1579.  many  scores  of  theological 
thinkers  had  labored  and  prayed  toward  this  end.  At  least  twelve  separate 
conventions,  ranging  from  Faculty  Conferences  to  National  Diets,  had  been 
utilized   in   its   interests."- — Vid.    G.    A.   Tressler   in   Lutheran    World. 

22  Condensed  from  Preface  to  Book  of  Concord,  p.   13. 


71(i         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS, 

After  allowing  about  two  years  for  the  public  subscrip- 
tions, the  rulers  and  Estates  met  and  signed  the  Formula 
and  its  Preface,  now  completed,  in  the  Spring  of  1579,  in 
all,  to  the  number  of  eighty-five  rulers,  nobles  and  free 
cities,  and  between  eight  and  nine  thousand  theologians  ^ 
(there  are  at  this  time,  1909,  just  a  few  more  than  eight 
thousand  ministers  in  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, including  all  branches). 

The  historical  counter|)ai-t  to  those  not  participating  in 
the  Formula  is  to  be  found  in  the  adherents  of  the  Tetra- 
politana,  who  did  not  participate  in  the  Augustana,  but 
sent  in  their  own  Confession.  Then  the  non-partcipants 
were  Zwinglian,  and  desired  to  be  admitted,  but  were  not. 
Xow  they  were  chiefly  Calvinistic,  and  would  not  allow 
themselves  to  be  admitted.  The  Preface  is  entitled,  "  We 
the  Electors,  Princes  and  Deputies  of  the  Holy  Eoman  Em- 
pire in  Germany,  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession." 
Thus  was  the  outer  Call  complete,  in  some  respects,  more  so 
than  at  Augsburg. 

But  we  lay  no  stress  on  the  participation  of  the  Civil 
Authorities,  whether  Emperor  or  Elector,  in  the  case  of 
either  Confession,  except  as  they  represented  the  duly  con- 
stituted Church  authorities  of  the  day ;  and  as  their  presence 
and  interest  indicated  the  stress  and  Providential  necessity 
that  brought  forth   the   Confession. 

^  For  full  particulars  see    Chap.    XXVII,   p.   671.  sqq. 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    CRITICISM    MADE    ON 

THE  MOTIVES  AND  ]\IEN,  AS  TOUCHING 

THE  QUESTION,  IS  THE  FORMULA 

A  CONFESSION  ? 

The  Motive  of  the  P'ormula  not  a  Party  One — The  Testimony  of  the  Formula  Itself 
— The  Men  of  the  Forniiila  :  Andreae,  Chemnitz,  Selnecker. 

HAVING  coiicliKled  the  discussion  of  the  Call,  we  are 
now  brought  to  the  inner  motive  underlying  the 
Formula.  It  must  be  put  to  the  test.  ''  Was  not  the  framing 
of  this  Confession  a  party  measure?  Was  it  not  the 
final  effort  of  the  Lutheran  Lutherans  to  throttle  the  Re- 
formed Lutherans,  and  to  suppress  all  liberty  of  thought  ? 
Was  the  purpose  of  its  framers  a  genuine  Confessional  one  ? 
Was  Confessional  Testimony  to  the  Word  of  God  really  the 
underlying  motive  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  ?  " 

On  this  question,  the  first  witness  that  is  entitled  to  be 
heard  is  the  Formula  itself.  What  motive  can  we  find  in  it, 
in  its  lines,  and  between  its  lines?  Is  that  motive  Confes- 
sional, or  is  there  a  temporal,  ecclesiastical,  factional,  or 
"  sectarian,"  interest  that  might  seem  to  have  caused  it  to 
appear  ?    The  Preface  to  the  Formula  says : — 

"It  is  a  remarkable  favor  of  Almighty  God,  that,  in  these  last  times  \_i.  e., 
this  Sixteenth  Century],  He  has  willed,  according  to  His  unspeakable  love,  that 

717 
49 


718         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  light  of  His  Gospel  and  Word,  through  which  alone  we  receive  true  salva- 
tion, should  arise  and  shine  after  the  darkness  of  papistical  superstitions.  This 
brouglit  forth  a  succinct  Confession,  prepared  from  the  Word  of  God,  offered  at 
Augsburg  in  1530  by  our  ancestors,  presented  to  the  deputies  of  the  Empire,  and 
finally  diffused  in  the  entire  world.  But  immediately  after  the  death  of  Luther, 
the  enemy  labored  to  disseminate  the  seeds  of  false  doctrine  in  the  churches  and 
schools,  and  to  separate  the  bond  of  Christian  agreement.  Now  our  chief  desire 
has  been  that  our  churches  should  persevere  in  the  pure  doctrine  of  God's  ^^  ord, 
and  in  unanimity,  and  that  they  should  be  handed  down  to  posterity  in  a  godly 
way.  As,  however,  we  see  that  corruptions  have  been  introduced  by  false 
brethren,  just  as  was  the  case  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  in  those  churches  in 
which  they  themselves  had  planted  the  Gospel;  mindful  of  our  duty,  ivhicli  7Ve 
know  has  been  divinely  enjoined  upon  us,  we  think  we  ought  diligently  apply 
ourselves  to  an  aggressive  advance  against  the  false  dogmas  in  our  realms.' 

"  Accordingly,  when  an  opportunity  occurred  at  the  Frankfort  Diet,  in  1558,  a 
unanimous  effort  was  made  to  hold  a  special,  general  assembly,  where  there 
might  be  a  thorough  but  amicable  conference^  among  us,  concerning  m.atters 
maliciously  presented  by  our  adversaries;  we  took  the  Augsburg  Confession  of 
1530,  and  all  subscribed  that  godly  confession,  built  upon  solid  testimonies  of 
truth  in  the  Word  of  God,  with  one  mind,  in  order,  in  this  way,  to  provide  for 
the  interests  of  posterity.  It  was  to  be  a  perpetual  testimony,  God  aiding  us,  to 
support  no  new  dogma,  but  retain  the  truth  which  we  professed  at  Augsburg 
in  1530. 

"  But  when  we  learned  that  our  Declaration  and  Repetition  of  the  godly  Con- 
fession had  little  weight  with  our  adversaries,  and  that  we^  were  grievously 
slandered;  and  the  things  we  did  with  the  best  intention  were  received  as  though 
we  were  so  uncertain  concerning  our  confession  of  faith  and  religion,  and  so  often 
have  transfused  it  from  one  formula  to  another,  that  it  is  no  longer  clear  to  us 
what  is  the  confession  once  oflVred  to  the  Emperor  at  Augsburg;  we  judged  that 
these  slanders  and  increasing  dissensions  could  not  be  better  met,  than  by  accur- 
ately explaming  the  controverted  articles,  by  rejecting  the  false  dogmas  and  by 
lucidly  presenting  the  truth. 

"Our  theologians  then  explained  the  controverted  articles  from  the  Word  of 
God  and  described  in  what  way  the  dissensions  could  be  settled  in  a  right  and 
good  manner;  and  we  were  of  the  judgment  that  this  goodly  purpose  of  the  theo- 
logians ought  to  be  promoted  by  us  with  great  earnestness  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  office  and  duty  divinely  cornmilled  to  us.  Accordingly,  in  the 
year  1576,  we  summoned  to  Torgau,  certain  eminent  theologians  who  conferred 
devoutly  with  one  another  concerning  the  controverted  articles  and  the  writing  of 
pacification.      Prayers   first  having   been  offered,   they  embraced  all  those  things 


^  These  are  princes,  not  theologians ;  and  under  the  theory  of  the  day.  in 
which  the  ruler  was  responsible  for  the  religion  of  his  people,  no  fault  can  be 
found  with  this  statement.  This  condition  obtained  from  the  start  of  the 
Reformation  ;   hut  in  America,  it,  happily,  no  longer  exists. 

^This  conference  was  held  at  Naumburg. 

'  The   princes. 


MOTIV.es   and   men.  719 

which  seemed  to  be  required,  in  a  document;*  and  thus  that  Book  of  godly  Con- 
cord was  composed. 

"'I'he  ministers  of  the  Church  with  the  most  ready  mind  and  the  testimony  of 
their  gratitude  toward  God,  received  this  Book  of  Concord,  as  expressing  the 
genuine  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  publicly  bore  witness  concern- 
ing it  with  heart,  mouth  and  hand.  Wherefore  that  godly  agreement  is  called  the 
harmonious  and  concordant  Confession  of  the  ministry  of  our  churches  and 
rectors  of  our  schools,  one  and  all,  in  our  provinces  and  realms. 

"This  is  the  reason  why  we,  with  great  and  godly  agreement,  have  worked  out 
in  this  Book  a  Declaration  of  our  perpetual  wish,  and  a  Repetition  of  our 
Christian  Faith  and  Confession. 

"The  first  Augsijurg  Confession  alone  (alone  we  say),  and  no  other,  pre- 
sented to  the  Emperor  in  1530,  by  the  help  of  God,  we  will  retain  to  our  last 
breath.  We  hope,  therefore,  that  our  adversaries  will  hereafter  not  accuse  us  of 
being  unable  to  decide  upon  anything  concerning  our  faith,  as  certain,  and  of 
fabricating  new  confessions  almost  every  year.  Nor  do  we  judge  that  other  useful 
writings  of  Dr.  Philip  Melanchthon,  or  of  Brenz,  Urban  Regius,  Pomeranus, 
etc.,  should  be  rejected  and  condemned  so  far  as  they  agree  in  all  things  with  the 
norm  which  has  been  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Concord. 

"Although  some  theologians,  and  among  them,  Luther  himself,  when  they 
treated  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  drawn  to  disputations  concerning  the  personal 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ;  nevertheless  our  theologians  testify  that  godly 
men  should  be  led,  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  no  other  foundations  than 
to  those  of  the  words  of  institution  of  the  testament  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
As  to  the  phrases  employed  when  we  treat  of  the  majesty  of  the  human  nature  in 
the  person  of  Christ  exalted,  our  theologians  wish  to  testify  that  this  majesty  is  in 
no  way  to  be  ascribed  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  outside  of  the  personal 
union,  neither  are  we  to  grant  that  the  human  nature  possesses  this  majesty,  as  its 
own. 

"The  duty  is  especially  incumbent  upon  all  the  theologians  and  ministers,  that 
they  teach  from  the  Word  of  God  those  who  in  a  simple  or  ignorant  mind  have 
erred  from  the  truth,  to  the  peril  of  their  salvation. 

"By  this  writing  of  ours,  we  testify  in  the  sight  of  Almighty  God  and  before 
the  entire  Church,  that  it  has  never  been  our  purpose  to  occasion  trouble  or  danger 
to  the  godly  who  today  are  suffering  persecution,  by  this  Formula  of  Union.  For 
as,  moved  by  Christian  love,  we  have  already  entered  the  fellowship  of  grief  with 
them,  so  we  are  shocked  at  this  persecution  and  most  grievous  tyranny,  and  sin- 
cerely detest  it. 

"We  testify  that,  in  the  before  mentioned  Declaration,  we  wish  to  conduct  our 
churches  and  schools,  first  of  all,  to  the  fountains  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  the 
Creeds,  and  then  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  As  instructed  from  the  Scriptures, 
we  are  sure  concerning  our  doctrine  and  Confession.  And  we  have  determined 
not  to  depart  even  a  finger's  breadth  either  from  the  things  themselves,  or  from 
the  phrases,  which  are  employed  concerning  them,  but  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  aid- 


*  Afterward   this   book    was    transmitted    into    most   able   hands    for   criticism. 
The  respon.ses  were  suggestive,  and  were  utilized. 


720        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ing  us,  to  persevere  constantly,  with  the  greatest  harmony,  in  this  godly  agree- 
ment; and  we  intend  to  examine  all  controversies  according  to  the  true  norm  and 
declaration  of  the  purer  doctrine.  With  the  rest  of  the  electors,  princes  and 
estates,  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire-  and  other  kings,  princes  and  magnates  of  the 
Christian  state,  we  also  have  determined  to  cultivate  peace  and  harmony."  * 

This  is  the  defense  officially  made  for  the  Formula.  We 
have  given  it  impartially,  and  have  concealed  nothing  that 
might  grate  on  modern  ears.  No  one  can  fail  to  find  in  these 
words  a  zealous  and  a  genuine  motive — even  if  it  were  a 
piously  mistaken  one — for  the  Formula.  It  was  not  politi- 
cal considerations,  personal  considerations,  partisan  consid- 
erations, but  the  teaching  of  the  pure  doctrine  to  church 
and  school,  and  the  setting  it  forth  in  a  proper,  official  and 
fixed  way,  so  that  friend  and  foe  alike  might  know  just 
what  it  was  at  which  these  official  framers  aimed. 

Their  intent  is  to  furnish  not  private  comment,  but  offi- 
cial teaching  that  will  harmonize  the  Church.  The  stress 
these  laymen  and  rulers  lay  on  subscription  (a  subscription 
list  is  the  laymen's  way  of  binding  to  a  declaration  or  enter- 
prise), the  willingness  they  assume  to  be  responsible  for 
all  teaching  in  their  dominions,  the  sharpness  of  their  reac- 
tion against  error,  and  many  other  things  which  we  would 
frame  and  do  differently  in  our  age,  are  readily  explain- 
able from  the  environment  of  these  godly  laymen,  and  from 
the  atmosphere  of  an  age  weary  of  unfair  argument  and 
bitter  conflict.     The  tone  here,  in  view  of  all,  is  moderate. 

When  we  come  to  the  Formula  itself  we  find  it  to  be  a 
real  "  Reconciliation  in  a  Christian  Way,"  "  according  to 
God's  Word,  of  Controverted  Articles "  in  the  Lutheran 
Church ;  and  in  every  case  the  declaration  is  "  we  believe, 
teach  and  confess."  The  genuine  Confessional  purpose  of 
the  writers  of  the  Formula  is  not  to  be  disputed.  As  repre- 
senting the  original  faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  these 
parts  of  the  Church  were  fully  justified  and,  indeed,  as 
Thomasius  says,  "  bound  to  proper  symbolical  decisions  in 
regard   to   the   controverted    topics;    and    if   this   was   done 

'  Condensed. 


MOTIVES   AND   MEN.  721 

in  consistency  with  the  older  confessions,  so  that  they  were 
consequences  of  them,  then  does  it  assume  the  place  of  a 
vital  continuation  of  them,  and  constitutes  them  an  organic 
whole.  lie,  then,  who  recognizes  them  as  his  faith  cannot 
without  inconsequence  and  without  contradiction  refuse  his 
belief  to  tlie  Concordia." ' 

If  the  objector  should  consider  himself  as  driven  from 
the  ground  of  historical  fact — from  the  stand|)oint  of  the 
occasion,  the  need,  the  call,  the  purpose  and  the  Confes- 
sional motive  of  the  Formula, — he  might  still  perhaps  con^ 
tinue  his  position  of  objection  and  inquiry  along  the  line 
of  the  character  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  work.  Were 
they  sufficiently  representative,  scrupulous,  pious  and 
learned  to  "  believe,  teach  and  confess  "  for  the  Church  ? 

There  is  one  man  who  shines  out  above  all  others  as  the 
practical  author  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  The  original  con- 
ception was  his,  and  he,  last  of  all,  put  the  substance  of  the 
Formula  into  the  form  of  the  Epitome.  His  also  were  the 
testings  of  the  plan  in  the  scorching  fires  of  experience.  To 
his  lot  fell  the  persuasion  and  conciliation  of  many  parties 
and  partisans  in  the  interest  of  this  higher  and  real  unity; 
and  the  return,  after  defeat,  to  new  attempts.  He  bore  the 
brunt  of  battle  far  more  than  any  other,  and  the  "  much 
hated  Book  "  reflected  the  great  bitterness  of  its  foes  upon 
him. 

He  was  a  man  of  affairs,  with  a  broad  grasp  of  situations, 
capable  of  dealing  with  currents  of  opinion  and  representa- 
tive personalities,  of  more  than  great,  if  not  of  exhaustive 
attainments  in  theology,  and  one  who  thoroughly  understood 
the  fact  that  Evangelical  Protestantism,  if  it  was  to  per- 
petuate itself  against  the  rule  of  Rome,  must  not  waste  its 
strength  in  individual  and  contradictory  effort  and  change, 
but  must  hold  firmly  and  distinctly  to  the  substance  of  the 
true   doctrine   of  the   Word   of   God.      From   this   position 


«Tr.  in  Ev.  Hei-.^  II,  p.  217. 


722        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

neither  persecution  nor  denunciation  could  move  bim.  He 
recognized  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  as  the  key 
of  the  sound  evangelical  faith,  and  in  this  he  lived  and 
died.  He  began  bis  public  activities  in  1546  and  ended 
them  in  1590  at  the  age  of  G2  years,  passing  away  after 
having  received  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with 
prayers  upon  his  lips. 

Probably  no  other  man  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  has  been 
so  much  abused  as  he, '  especially  by  the  Reformed  writer 
Hospinian,  and  others.  Let  us  now  say  the  worst  about 
Jacob  Andreae,  the  projector  of  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
and  the  author  of  the  Epitome.  He  was  of  an  abrupt  and 
fiery  disposition,  vehement  and  vociferous  in  argumentation, 
often  considering  himself  to  be  the  only  one  in  the  right, 
peculiar  in  his  feelings,  easily  stirred  to  passion,  and  not 
always  cautious  in  the  use  of  his  language.  He  probably 
possessed  little  of  that  false  modesty  which  causes  a  man 
to  be  eager  to  receive  the  credit  for  his  own  actions  and  to 
feel  hurt  when  it  is  not  given,  and  thus  also  impels 
him  to  sit  quiet  and  be  sulky  when  juslice  is  not  done  him. 
He  was  filled  with  faith,  patience  and  perseverance  beyond 
all  possible  expectancy.  In  our  judgment,  he  was  not  more 
ambitious,  and  ])robably  not  so  much  so,  as  many  of  the 
ecclesiastical  leaders,  servants  of  God,  in  our  own  day.  We 
might  mention  a  whole  line  of  leaders  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  '  with  whom,  in  spirituality,  he  would  compare  favor- 
ably. 

Andreae  was  one  of  those  honest  souls  who  erred  in  all 
sincerity,  from  undue  persistency,  and  from  passionate  ear- 


'  "Ungerecht    aber    sind    die    maszlosen    Sclimahungen    und    Verdiichtigungen, 
womit  er  von   Mit-und    Nachwelt    ist   iiberhaiift   worden." — Wangemann. 

*  When  men  occupy  positions  of  authority,  it  seems  to  become  more  or  less 
of  a  second  nature  to  them  to  speak  as  with  authority,  and  to  tolerate  no 
dissent  from  their  opinion.  Even  the  mild,  modest  and  truly  pious  Walther, 
Is  said,   in  his  later  years,  to  have  been  no  exception  to  this  law. 

If  we  were  to  select  a  group  of  modern  ecclesiastics,  whose  range,  attain- 
ments and  motives  were  on  not  quite  so  high  a  level  as  those  ^f  .Jacob 
Andreae,  the  names  that  occur  to  us  would  be  Dean  Stanley,  Stopford  Brooke, 
Philip  Schaff,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Leonard  Bacon,  Phillips  Brooks,  Bishop 
Potter ;  shall  we  come  down  a  .step  and  say,  I.  K.  Funk.  Russel  Conwell, 
Cardinal  Gibbous  and  John  Wanamaker? 


MOTIVES   AND   MEN.  733 

nestness;  and  no  one  was  more  ready  to  openlv  acknowledge 
his  weaknesses  and  faults  than  he,  to  ask  the  forgiveness  of 
those  whom  he  injured  or  offended,  and  to  gladly  forgive 
those  who  had  offended  him. 

Yet  he  is  painted  in  the  blackest  colors  by  contemporaries 
within  and  without  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  by  the  union- 
istic  and  rationalistic  Symbolical  writers.  Planck  is  par- 
ticularly scathing  in  his  arraignment  of  Andreae,  and  even 
Kolde  has  perhaps  not  thoroughly  estimated  the  value  and 
the  nobility  of  a  pioneer  of  this  kind  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Andreae  was  always  bold  and  outspoken.  As  a  young 
man  of  eighteen  years,  he  was  the  only  pastor  who  remained 
at  his  post  in  Stuttgart  when  the  city  was  occupied  with 
Spanish  troops  in  the  Schmalkald  war,  and  here  by  his 
conduct  he  gained  the  respect  of  the  enemy.  When  the 
Interim  came,  Andreae,  then  twenty  years  of  age,  resigned 
rather  than  accept  its  concessions  to  Rome.  The  Interim  of 
1548  drove  him  out  of  Stuttgart.  Later  he  became  the 
fellow-laborer  of  Brentz,  yet  was  not  always  of  the  same 
opinion  with  him. 

In  1554  he  attempted,  after  the  manner  of  a  Calvinistic 
reformer,  to  introduce  better  morals  into  Wiirttemberg  by 
law.  In  1559  he  was  engaged  in  a  controversy  with  the 
Calvinists  concerning  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and,  when  with  the  Wiirttemberg  Church 
he  cut  loose  from  all  the  Philippistic  mediation  theories  of 
the  Supper,  he  drew  upon  himself  the  ridicule  of  Melanch- 
thon  and  the  attacks  of  Beza  and  Bullinger.  He  accom- 
panied his  prince  to  Regensburg  in  1557  and  boldly  opposed 
the  Roman  preachers  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg  in  1559. 

In  15G1  he  was  engaged  in  many  administrative  affairs 
in  the  Church,  and  in  15 G2  predestinarian  and  sacramenta- 
rian  controversy  occupied  his  time.  In  15G8  he  was  sent, 
at  the  request  of  Duke  Julius,  to  aid  in  the  introduction  of 
an  evangelical  liturgy  in  Brunswick  and  to  represent  the 
South   German   theologians   in   conference   with   the   North 


724        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

German  theologians,  viz.,  Chemnitz  and  Selnecker,  in  order 
to  establish  a  consensus  of  agreement  as  to  the  true  faith 
of  the  Church. 

From  this  time  on,  that  is,  betweeen  1568  and  1580,  he 
gave  his  life  to  the  unification  of  the  Church  in  a  common 
faith.  He  first  sought  the  aid  of  Duke  Julius  and  the 
Brunswick  theologians,  and  then  set  out  for  nearly  all  the 
courts,  universities  and  cities  in  Germany  in  order  to  secure 
adherents  to  his  Five  Articles  of  Peace,  and  do  away  with  the 
controversies  and  the  errors  disrupting  the  Lutheran  Church 
since  the  death  of  Luther.  For  this  purpose  he  visited 
Brandenburg,  Wittenberg,  Magdeburg,  Anhalt,  Hesse,  Pome- 
rania.  Lower  Saxony,  Schleswig-Holstein,  Mecklenburg, 
Liibeck,  Hamburg,  Llineburg,  Bremen,  Denmark,  and  even 
went  to  the  Emperor  Maximilian  IL,  in  Prague,  who  en- 
couraged him  in  his  work.  He  labored  to  the  same  end  in 
South  Germany,  from  whence  he  hailed. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  this  first  effort  at  the  pacifi- 
cation of  the  Church  was  made  by  Andreae  with  the  idea 
of  reconciling  all  the  extreme  parties  and  of  bringing  the 
Philippists  and  the  Flacians,  as  well  as  the  Conservatives, 
together  into  the  same  faith.  By  1570  he  came  to  under- 
stand that  neither  the  Philippists  at  Wittenberg,  nor  the 
Gnesio-Lutherans  at  Jena,  would  ever  enter  into  such  an 
effort  to  unite  the  Church;  and  he  quietly  projected  a  new 
plan  of  operations,  which  would  be  straightforward  and  meet 
the  truth  in  the  middle.  He  gave  up  the  impracticable  idea 
of  neutralizing  opposites  or  of  a  compromising  of  extremes, 
but  set  his  heart  on  bringing  together  all  the  sound  confes- 
sional elements  in  South  and  North  Germany  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  orthodox  confession  which  would  preserve 
the  true  Lutheran  faith  throughout  all  the  future. 

To  this  end  he  prepared  Six  Sermons  °  in  1572,  and  when, 
in  1576,  the  Elector  Augustus  desired  to  restore  the  true 
Lutheran  faith  in  his  domain,  Andreae  was  summoned.    He 


•Vid.  Chap.  XXV. 


MOTIVES   AM)   MEN.  725 

attended  the  Lichtenbei'g  Conveution  in  the  middle  of 
February,  1576. 

As  the  inception,  the  overcoming  of  difficulties,  and  the 
practical  moves  in  the  formation  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
were  his,  both  Catholics  and  Calvinists,  Philippists  and 
Flacians  were  embittered  against  him,  and  even  within  the 
ranks  of  his  own  fellow-workers  complaints  were  made  of 
his  overpowering  personality.  Yet  Planck  is  obliged  to  say 
of  Andreae  that  he  "  belongs  not  merely  to  the  learned,  but 
to  the  liberal-minded  theologians  of  his  era.  ...  It 
was  not  in  his  nature  to  hate  any  man  merely  because  that 
man  was  not  orthodox.  ...  It  was  not  only  possible 
for  him  to  be  just  at  least  in  the  beginning  toward  those 
who  were  in  error,  but  he  felt  a  something  to  which  it  is 
not  easy  to  give  a  name  which  attracted  him  to  those  that 
erred." 

With  Andreae  was  Chemnitz,  the  greatest  theologian  of 
the  Sixteenth  Century.  "  The  learning  of  Chemnitz  was 
something  colossal,  but  it  had  no  tinge  of  pedantry.  His 
judgment  was  of  the  highest  order.  His  modesty  and  sim- 
plicity, his  clearness  of  thought,  and  his  luminous  style,  his 
firmness  in  principle,  and  his  gentleness  in  tone,  the  richness 
of  his  learning  and  the  vigor  of  his  thinking,  have  revealed 
themselves  in  such  measure  in  his  Loci,  his  Books  on  the 
Two  IS^atures  of  our  Lord,  and  on  the  True  Presence,  in 
his  Examen  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  his  Defence  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  his  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  as 
to  render  each  a  classic  in  its  kind,  and  to  mark  their 
author  as  the  greatest  theologian  of  his  time — one  of  the 
greatest  theologians  of  all  time."  '" 

"  Chemnitz  is  distinguished  as  a  theologian  for  his  clear 
and  transparent  style,  his  mild  but  decided  spirit,  and  his 
sound  and  discriminating  judgment.  To  the  discussion  of 
every  subject,  he  brings  the  mature  fruit  of  most  extensive 
reading.     He  belonged  to  the  school  of  the  stricter  Luth- 


"  Con.  Ret;  p.  310. 


726         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

erans,  at  the  same  time  always  retaining  the  highest  resjDect 
for  his  precei)tor,  Melanchthon."  " 

AYith  Andreae  and  Chemnitz  was  associated  Xichohis  Sel- 
nccker,  the  great  theologian  of  Augustus,  the  author  of  the 
beautiful  German  hymn,  "Ach  bleib  bei  uns,  Herr  Jesu 
Christ,"  and  one  of  the  best-beloved  hymn  writers  of  that 
century.  Though  bitterly  attacked,  he  remained  silent  under 
abuse. "  He  was  severely  persecuted  by  the  Reformed 
Church  for  his  work  on  the  Formula  of  Concord.  When 
Augustus  died,  Selnecker  was  deposed,  his  family  was  har- 
assed, he  was  reduced  to  poverty,  not  being  allowed  even  to 
remain  in  Leipzig  as  a  private  citizen.  With  these  men 
were  Chytriius,  Professor  at  the  University  of  Rostock,  a 
great  and  renowned  teacher,  of  naive  and  gracious  mind,  of 
good  judgment,  and  Musculus,  earnest,  fearless  and  active. 

We  doubt  whether  the  Lutheran  Church  has  ever  had  a 
body  of  men  greater  in  learning  and  piety  than  those  who 
elaborated  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Although  they  were 
human,  and  their  faults  were  open  and  known,  as  were 
those  of  the  three  chief  apostles  of  our  Lord,  yet  the  hon- 
esty of  their  purpose,  the  dei)th  of  their  piety,  and  the 
sincerity  of  their  conviction  cause  their  life  to  add  to,  instead 
of  detracting  from,  the  validity  of  the  Confession. 

The  Age  of  Illumination  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  was, 
in  its  superior  aeuteness  of  culture  very  sarcastic  as  to  its 
judgments  on  the  men,  the  motives  and  the  value  of 
the  Book  of  CoTicord.  Weber  and  other  Mclanchthonian 
scholars  write  against  the  Book  of  Concord  with  a  bitter- 
ness that  is  amazing.  In  attributing  malice,  dishonesty  and 
other  of  the  worst  motives  of  human  nature  as  the  moving 
causes  of  historical  facts,  they  remind  one  of  Ernest  Renan 
in  his  treatment  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  of  certain  nega- 
tive critics  of  the  Old  Testament  who  reduce  the  human 
personalities  of  the  ]iatriarehs  and  early  personages  in  the 


"Jacobs.   Lvtheran   Cyclopedia. 

"  Even   Wcbor   a   ccutury   later,    abuses  and   accuses   Selnecker. 


MOTIVES   AND   MEN.  737 

Old  Testament  to  a  compound  of  the  most  selfish  attributes 
of  human  nature. 

The  effort  of  these  Melanchthonian  liboralists  in  laying 
so  much  stress  on  the  variations  of  the  Augustana  in  con- 
nection with  the  Preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  with 
a  disj)aragement  of  the  motives  of  its  writers,  is  to  discredit 
the  strength  of  the  Confessional  principle,  to  undermine  the 
fixed  and  firm  foundation  of  the  Faith  in  ecclesiastical  Con- 
fessions, and  to  make  of  them  the  expression  of  the  sum  of 
human  opinion  concerning  Faith  at  any  moment,  which 
changes  with  every  moment. 

But  these  writers  seem  to  forget  that  the  same  critical 
principles  which  they  use  against  the  Confessions,  if  valid, 
are  also  equally  operative  against  the  Scripture  itself.  For 
every  variation  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Confessions  there 
are  perhaps  ten  in  the  manuscripts  of  Scripture.  And  of 
all  texts  of  Scripture,  the  Textus  Eeceptus — the  one  on 
which  our  English  Bible  is  based — is  one  of  the  most  cor- 
rupt. 

All  scholars  recognize  that  this  is  not  the  real  point 
in  Scripture;  neither  is  it  the  real  point  at  issue  in  the 
Confessions.  If  the  writer  were  re-writing  this  work  he 
might  and  doubtless  would  introduce  dozens  of  variations 
into  its  mere  phraseology;  but  these  changes  would  not  alter 
any  historical  values  it  may  possess  so  long  as  the  facts  and 
})ositions  he  maintains  remained  identical  in  every  writing. 

We  do  not  consider  such  reasoning  as  that  of  Weber  on 
the  gentle  Chytraus  as  just.  HoAVsoever  Colestin  may  de- 
serve his  condenmation,  any  one  of  a  hundred  circumstances, 
of  which  we  know  nothing,  might  have  existed  to  change 
the  whole  situation.  The  argument  is  one  of  probabilities, 
re-enforced  by  appeal  to  unworthy  human  motives,  such  an 
argument  as  should  not  be  resorted  to  by  men  of  really  sur- 
passing critical  power." 


"  Kraiith's  "  Concervative  Reformation"  is  sometimes  pointed  to  as  very 
acute  and  penetrative  in  its  polemic,  but  wtien  we  recall  that  Krauth  wrote 
with  a  full   study  and  mastery  of  Weber,   the  biting  Melanchthonian,   we  may 


728        TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Dr.  Kraiith  was  in  possession  of  the  researches  of  Weber 
as  early  as  1854,  and  all  his  positions  with  reference  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession  were  matured  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  Weber's  demonstrations  as  to  the  texts  of  the 
Augustana — demonstrations  that  with  some  additions  are 
occasionally  given  forth  to  the  world  under  the  impression 
of  being  new  discoveries  of  more  recent  scholarship. 

In  estimating  the  writings  of  historians  who  criticize  the 
confessional  value  of  the  Tormula  of  Concord,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  spirit  of  detraction  and  hatred  shown 
toward  the  Formula  had  been  experienced  in  earlier  days 
by  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself.  Thus  Possevinus  de- 
clares," "  Quamobrem  Confessio  haec  non  Confessio,  sed 
infitiatio  atq.  negatio  Evangelicae,  Sacrae,  Christianae  ac 
Verae  Augustanac  Fidei  jure  optimo  vocanda  est." 

The  Papists  and  Fabricius  *'  falsely  assert  that  the  Elector 
John  denied  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  ordered  his  son 
John  Frederick  to  abolish  the  Lutheran  religion.  And 
Carpzov"  jioints  that  tlie  Calvinists"  and  the  Papists"  af- 
firm that  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  conscripta  and  con- 
cinnata  in  the  name  of  a  few  orders  by  a  few  theologians  in 
the  greatest  haste  and  under  the  pressure  of  dreadful  fear. 
The  enemies  of  the  Conservative  Evangelical  Confession 
have  pronounced  malediction  u])on  it  first  and  last — first 
on  the  Augustana,  and  last  on  the  Formula.  But  its  friends, 
the  church  of  the  Reformation,  have  ever  enjoyed  the  bone- 
diction  of  the  Auguistana's  healthy  trunk  and  ever  have  sat 
in  safety  beneath  the  shadow  of  the  Formula's  protecting 
branches. 


wpll  admire  the  noble  objectivity  of  Krauth's  thought.  Of  Webor,  Krauth 
says,  his  work  "  is  classic  in  the  department  of  the  text  of  the  Confession." — • 
Con.   Bef.,  p.   249. 

"  In   1.    VII.    Bibl.    15.    f.    298. 

"■  In   Pra-fat,   Harm.   Ungersdorflus,    Pistor.    Jodocus   Kedd. 

"  Is.   p     127. 

*'  Neostadd.    in    Admon.    c.    4.    p.    143. 

'*  Flor.    Raemund.    1.    2.    Synop.    et    Aut.    Comp.    c.    1.    qv.    I.    n,   S.    Patzm,   in 
Hodeg.   1.   4. 


CHAPTER    XXXI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  AXSWEPt  OF  THE  FORMULA'S  OUTER  FORM 

TO  THE  QUESTIO?^,  IS  THE  FORMULA 

A  CONFESSION? 

The  Title  of  the  Formula  and  its  Wording — No  Confessional  Claim  for  the  Solida 
Declaratio — Is  the  Formula  a  "Commentary"  ? — In  what  Sense  it  is  a  Mere 
Repetition,  and  not  a  New  Confession — Comparison  with  the  Form  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  — Why  the  Formula  presents  doctrine  by  Antagonism — In  what 
sense  the  Formula  is  a  Commentary — Is  the  Formula  a  Treatise  on  Dogmatics  ? 
— Does  the  Formula  represent  All  Types  of  Lutheranism? — Does  Sharpness  of 
Logical  Form  Condemn,  with  the  Epitome  as  a  Confession  ? 

AFTER  having  examined  the  Formula  in  the  light  of 
the  confessional  confusion  that  preceded  it,  and  of 
the  confessional  multiplication  it  intended  to  obviate;  of 
the  reafhrmation  it  establishes  between  itself  and  the  oecu- 
menical Confessions,  and  between  itself  and  the  Augsburg 
and  later  Lutheran  confessions;  in  the  light  of  its  men  and 
motives,  of  its  solemn  and  oft-repeated,  "  we  believe,  teach 
and  confess," — we  cannot  do  otherwise  than  conclude  that 
it  came  into  being  with  a  genuine  Confessional  purpose. 
Its  purpose  was  to  settle,  set  fast,  and  bear  witness  to  the 
real  doctrine  of  the  Evangelical  Church.  This  purpose  is 
further  evinced  in  the  Title  and  external  form  of  the 
work. 

The  deliberate  confessional  object  of  those  who  issued  the 
Formula  appears  in  the  Title  which  they  prefaced  to  the 
original  symbolical  volume.     They  called  the  Book  of  Con- 

739 


7aO        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

cord,  the  "  Christian,  Repeated,  Unanimous  Confession  of 
Faith  of  the  Electors,  Princes  and  E stales  of  the  Augshurg 
Confession,  and  their  Theologians,  Subscribed  at  the  end 
of  the  book ;  to  which  has  been  added  a  Comprehensive  Dec- 
laration, from  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  only  norm  and  rule 
of  the  truth,  of  Certain  Articles  that  have  Come  into  Con- 
troversy since  the  happy  departure  from  this  life  of  Dr. 
Martin  Luther." 

ISTothing  could  mark  the  intention  of  its  framers  and  the 
historical  fact  itself  more  formally  than  the  language  used 
in  this  Title.  The  Public  and  Official  Confession  of  those 
who  make  it,  and  who  are  standing  on  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, is  the  Book  of  Concord,  from  the  Apostles'  Creed 
at  the  beginning  to  the  Epitome  of  the  Formula  at  the  end; 
to  which  there  has  then  been  added,  in  the  form  of  proof 
from  Scripture,  the  more  comprehensive  Declaration  of  the 
Articles  in  controversy.  The  Epitome  is  the  confession 
which  they  put  forth ;  and  the  Comprehensive  Declaration 
is  its  explanation  and  defense — as  the  Apology  is  the  ex])la- 
nation  and  defense  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the 
Large  Cathechism  is  the  explanation  of  the  Small  Catechism. 

At  this  point  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  oft- 
repeated  statement  that,  "  while  we  are  unwilling  to  ascribe 
public  Confessional  value  to  the  Formula  as  a  symbol  of 
the  Church,  we  are  willing  to  accept  it  privately  and  for 
ourselves,  and  to  admit  its  great  value  as  a  private  work." 
The  usual  form  in  which  this  mediate  position,  ascribing 
value,  but  refusing  Confessional  validity  to  the  Formula, 
declares  itself,  is  in  the  phrase,  "  The  Formula  of  Concord 
is  a  'commentary,'  a  valuable  commentary,  on  Lutheran  doc- 
trine.    But  it  is  only  a  commentary,  and  not  a  Confession." 

If  those  who  hold  to  this  position  were  to  include  the 
Epitome  among  the  Confessions,  as  the  sixth  and  last 
symbol  of  the  Bot)k  of  Concord,  we  believe  that  the  C^onfes- 
sional  question  in  the  Lutheran  Church  would  quickly  re- 
solve itself  into  a  comi3lete  and  genuine  harmony  on  the 


THE    FORMULA'S   FORM.  731 

basis  of  the  Title  just  quoted.  For  the  only  unsettled  ques- 
tion, tben,  would  be  as  to  the  formal  nature  and  the  position 
of  the  Comprehensive  Declaration.  The  substance  of  doc- 
trine would  be  exactly  the  same,  no  matter  what  view  was 
taken  as  to  the  quality  of  the  Comprehensive  Declaration. 

Says  Thomasius:  "The  Epitome  cannot,  with  any  jus- 
tice, with  its  clear  and  precise  form,  be  exposed  to  this  ob- 
jection that  it  wears  much  more  the  form  of  a  theological 
dissertation  than  that  of  a  Confession.  It  lays  down  its 
positive  and  negative  positions  with  so  much  acuteness  and 
clearness,  and  maintains  so  happily  the  didactic  confessional 
manner,  that  it  leaves  notliing-,  in  this  respect,  to  be  desired ; 
indeed  it  siirpasses  in  this  the  Augustnna.  In  the  Solida 
Declaratio  theological  explanation  and  argument  are  pre- 
dominant. .  .  .  Why  should  the  Form  of  Concord  be 
condemned  for  that  which  is  admired  in  the  Apology  "  {Ev. 
Rev.  II,  216). 

But  quite  against  the  intention  and  Title  of  the  book, 
against  its  call,  origin  and  substance  and  results,  the  ob- 
jector declares  that  the  Formula — meaning  the  whole  work — 
is  "  only  a  Commentary." 

Is  the  Augsburg  Confession  only  a  Commentary  ?  It 
was  written  to  bring  "  back  to  the  one  simple  truth  and 
Christian  Concord "  *  the  whole  Christian  Church.  Just 
so  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  written  to  "  set  forth  and 
reconcile  in  a  Christian  way  "  the  doctrines  in  the  whole 
Evangelical  Faith.  The  Augsburg  Confession  offers  itself 
to  "  Your  Imperial  ]\rajesty  " ;  the  Formula  of  Concord  tes- 
tifies "  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  of  all  Christendom,  to  those 
now  living  and  those  who  shall  come  after  us."  The  Augs- 
burg Confession  witnesses  to  "  the  Confession  of  our  preach- 
ers and  of  ourselves";  the  Formula  witnesses  "that  the 
above  Declaration  is  our  Faith,  Doctrine  and  Confession, 
in  which  we  also  will  appear,  by  God's  grace,  with  unterri- 


*  Preface  to  Augs.  Conf. 


733        THE   L U T II E R A N    C  ONFESSIO N S . 

fied  heart  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
for  it  will  give  an  account." 

If  the  objector,  who  can  hardly  maintain  standing  ground 
for  the  proposition  that  the  Formula  is  only  a  private  writ- 
ing of  some  kind,  in  the  face  of  this  language  of  the  For- 
mula, nevertheless  desires  to  persist  in  his  position,  he  will 
take  one  step  further  and  say :  "  But  the  Formula  of  Concord 
mentions  all  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  and  does  not  include 
itself  among  them.  It  expressly  says  that  its  intention  is  not 
to  promulgate  '  any  new  Confession.'  Why,  then,  should  it 
be  regarded  as  a  Confession  ?" 

To  this  objection  the  reply  is  evident.  The  authors  of  the 
Formula  made  clear  the  Confessional  iiitent  of  their  work, 
but  it  was  not  in  their  province  to  set  the  final  and  outer 
seal  of  value  on  what  they  had  done.  They  loyally  put  the 
seal  on  everything  that  the  Church  had  done  up  to  their  day, 
and  they  left  it  to  us,  their  successors,  with  equal  loyalty  to 
the  testimony  of  the  Church,  to  affix  the  seal  of  value  on 
what  they  had  done. 

It  was  not  in  their  province  to  define  the  value  of  their 
own  Confession,  nor  was  it  in  line  with  their  object.  Their 
object  was  to  show  that  they  were  not  creating  anything  new, 
but  merely  recovering  the  one  old  Confession  in  the  Church, 
as  it  manifested  itself  in  all  the  Confessions.  Their  order 
is  historical,  beginning  with  the  Scripture  and  coming  down 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  from  which  departure  had  been 
made  (especially  in  the  Variata),  and  to  which  they  were 
now  trying  to  lead  back  the  Church. 

Thus  they  emphasize  the  unchanging  Confessional  prin- 
ciple, the  same  unchanging  germ  that  unfolds  itself  in  ever- 
widening  circles  of  growth.  As  Frank  '  points  out,  the  Con- 
fessions of  the  Ancient  and  those  of  the  Reformation  Church, 
do  not  run  in  parallels,  nor  stand  by  themsehes  as  a  row 
of  unconnected  units;  but  they  concentre  about  Scripture  as 


Theoloyie  der  Concordien  Formel,  I,  7. 


THE   FORMULA'S   FORM.  733 

narrower  and  broader  circles :  the  latter  of  which  presuppose 
and  include  the  former,  wherever  the  development  is  normal. 
The  inner  living  and  self-centered  faith  sends  forth  out  of 
its  trunk,  in  response  to  solicitation  from  without,  a  circle 
of  boughs  and  branches,  which,  though  turned  to  various 
sides,  and  varying  in  extent,  are  yet  all  expressions  of  the 
same  inner  creative  life-power;  and  as  a  harmonious  whole 
show  fortli  the  one  principle  within  them  which  causes  them 
to  shoot  up. 

"  It  is  from  this  view  that  the  utterances  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  are  to  be  measured  when  it  solemnly  assures 
us  that  it  does  not  desire  to  constitute  any  new  Confession; 
but,  in  bringing  the  existing  conflicts  to  a  decision  in  accord- 
ance with  God's  Word  and  the  approved  writings,  it  does 
so  only  in  the  power  of  the  divine  Word,  and  of  the  earlier 
Confessions.  The  reference  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  to 
the  Confession,  partly  of  the  old  and  partly  of  the  renewed 
Scriptural  Church,  at  once  transplants  us  into  the  organic 
connection,  out  of  which  the  truly  genuine  standards  always 
grow. 

Let  us  look  more  closely  into  the  supj)osition  that  the 
Formula  of  Concord  claims  for  itself  no  Confessional  value, 
because  of  its  repeated  statements  that  it  does  not  intend  to 
make  or  introduce  a  new  Confession.  In  the  opening  para- 
graph of  the  Solid  Declaration '  it  says :  "  We  have  declared 
to  one  another,  with  heart  and  mouth,  that  we  will  neither 
make  nor  receive  any  separate  or  new  Confession  of  our 
Faith,  but  acknowledge  as  Confessional  the  public  common 
writings  which  always  and  everywhere  were  received  in  all 
the  Churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  such  Symbols 
or  Public  Confessions,  before  the  dissensions  arose  among 
those  who  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  as  long  as 
there  was  a  unanimous  adherence,  maintenance  and  use  of 
the  pure  doctrine  of  God's  Word  as  the  late  Dr.  Luther 


'  Book   of   Concord,   p.    535. 
50 


734        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

explained  it."  This  is  not  an  utterance  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  -Formula  which  they  are  now  hringing  forth,  but  an  ex- 
planation of  the  reason  why  they  introduce  the  earlier  and 
already  recognized  *'  Public  Confessions "  of  the  Church, 
viz.,  the  three  oecumenical  creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  Luther's  Large  and 
Small  Catechisms,  which  are  to  them  "  the  sum  of  the 
Christian  doctrine."  The  Confessors  are  not  here  intimating 
that  their  own  work  is  but  a  private  commentary ;  and  is  not 
to  be  regarded  as  a  Symbol ;  but  that,  in  this  new  Declaration 
or  Symbol,  they  are  not  setting  up  a  new  Confession. 

The  earlier  Confessions  are  introduced  as  a  witness  of 
the  truth  in  God's  Word,  and  as  "  a  unanimously  received 
correct  understanding  of  our  predecessors."  In  other  words, 
they  are  here,  without  openly  saying  it,  yet  actually,  placing 
the  Formula  in  line  and  on  a  level  with  the  other  historic 
creeds,  in  so  far  as  the  Confessors  touch  the  subject  at  all. 

But  the  real  point  which  they  are  elucidating  is  the  state- 
ment that  "  for  thorough,  permanent  unity  in  the  Church,  it 
is  before  all  things  necessary  that  we  have  a  Comprehensive, 
unanimously  approved  Summary  and  Form,"  wherein  are 
brought  together  from  God's  Word  the  common  doctrines 
reduced  to  a  brief  compass,  the  work  of  previous  confessors 
in  this  field,  as  they  state:  "''  By  what  has  thus  far  been  said 
concerning  the  Summary  of  our  Christian  doctrine,  we  have 
only  meant  that  we  have  a  unanimously  received,  defi- 
nite and  common  form  of  doctrine,  which  our  Evangelical 
Churches  together  and  in  common  confess."  When,  then,  they 
speak  of  making  no  new  Confession,  they  mean  to  say  that 
the  Formula,  as  a  Confession  in  line  with  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  other  Confessions  before  it,  is  a  Confes- 
sion of  the  same  old  ^'unanimously  received,  definite  common 
form  of  doctrine."  It  is  not  a  new  Confession,  but  merely 
a  repetition  of  the  old  Confession,  and  therefore  of  the  same 
authority  as  the  old  Confession.  ''In  order  that  the  truth 
may  be  preserved  the  more  distinctly,   and  be  not   hidden 


THE   FORMULA'S   FORM.  735 

under  rather  general  words,  we  have  expressly  made  a  Dec- 
laration to  one  another;  so  that  there  might  be  a  Public, 
Definite  Testimony,  not  only  for  those  now  living,  but  also 
for  our  posterity,  as  to  what  is  and  should  remain  the 
unanimously  received  understanding  and  judgment  of  our 
Churches." 

This  "  Declaration,"  this  ''Public  Definite  Testimony," 
intended  for  "  Posterity  "  and  showing  the  "  unanimous  " 
teaching  "  of  the  Churches,"  guarding  against  false  doctrine 
and  practice  in  the  ministry  and  in  the  schools,  is  not  a 
private  writing,  but  consciously  professes  the  elements  of 
symbolical  authority.  And  can  there  be  doubt  as  to  this 
authority?  We  have  the  judgment  of  Seeberg:  "  The  For- 
mula of  Concord  thus  at  once  assumed  a  position  among 
the  regulative  symbols  of  Lutheranism."  *  We  have  the 
remarkable  testimony  even  of  Schaff : — 

"  The  Formula  is  the  fullest  embodiment  of  genuine  Luth- 
eran orthodoxy,  as  distinct  from  other  denominations.  It 
represents  one  of  the  leading  doctrinal  types  of  Christendom. 
It  is  for  the  Lutheran  system  what  the  Decrees  of  Trent  are 
for  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Canons  of  Dort  for  the  Cal- 
vinistic.  It  sums  up  the  results  of  the  theological  contro- 
versies of  a  whole  generation  with  great  learning,  ability, 
discrimination,  acumen,  and,  we  may  add,  with  compara- 
tive moderation.  It  is  quite  probable  that  Luther  himself 
would  have  heartily  indorsed  it,  with  the  exception,  perhaps, 
of  a  part  of  the  eleventh  article.  The  Formula  itself  claims 
to  be  merely  a  repetition  and  explication  of  the  genuine 
sense  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  disclaims  originality 
as  to  the  substance  of  the  doctrine."  ° 

Schaif  here  admits  that  the  Formula  ''  is  for  the  Lutheran 
system  what  the  Decrees  of  Trent  are  for  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic"; and  that  the  disclaimer  of  originality  ("not  a  new 
Confession")    refers   to   the   substance  of   the  docti-iiie — to 


•  Hist.  Doctr.,  II,  p.   382. 

"Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  338  sq.     Schaff's  footnote  is  discussed  elsewhere. 


73(i        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  old  doctrine — and  not  to  the  symbolical  form  of  the 
Declaration.  This  is  sufficient  to  convince  the  discriminat- 
ine-  mind  that  it  is  untenable  to  maintain  that  the  Formula 
is  but  a  private  commentary.  But,  if  more  evidence  be 
needed,  it  is  to  be  found  in  many  places  in  the  Formula. 
Thus  the  authors  bind  themselves,  saying: — 

"  We  will  speak  .  .  .  nothing  contrary  to  this 
Declaration,  but  .  .  .  intend  to  abide  thereby.  .  .  . 
We  have  attached  our  signatures  with  our  own  hands." 
This  is  not  the  language  of  a  Commentary  nor  of  a  Dog- 
matic. It  is  the  language,  most  solemn,  deliberate  and 
final,  of  a  binding  Confession. 

Let  us  compare  the  public  forms  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession with  those  of  the  Formula,  and  see  whether  these 
be  not  of  equal  symbolical  validity.  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession appeals  to  the  Emperor;  the  Formula,  to  God  Him- 
self and  the  Judgment  Seat  of  Christ.  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  intended  as  part  of  "  a  mutual  presentation  of 
writings  and  calm  conference  between  us."  It  was  one  of  two 
religious  parties  appearing  before  the  Emperor,  and  was 
not  sanctioned  by  a  Council  of  the  Church :  "  In  the  event 
that  .  .  .  the  difference  between  us  and  the  other 
parties  be  not  settled,  we  present  ourselves  .  .  . 
ready,  thcnigh  it  he  hcyond  vliat  is  sufficient,  to  .  .  . 
defend  our  cause  in  a  general,  free  and  Christian  Council. 
.  .  .  Nor  do  we  intend  to  forsake  it  by  this  or 
any  other  document,  unless  the  matter  between  us  should 
.  .  .  be  compared,  settled,  and  brought  to  Christian 
concord."  The  Augsburg  Confession,  therefore,  was  not 
the  Confession  of  a  General  Council — was  not  even 
hiid  before  the  General  Council;  but  it  was  "a  solemn 
and  public  protest"  by  one  of  two  parties  before  a  civil 
tribunal.  The  Formula  of  Concord  takes  this  Augsburg 
Confession  and  binds  it  in  with  the  other  symbols  of  the 
Christian  Church,  ''as  the  symbol  of  our  time";  and  con- 
fessionally  acknowledges  it  and  the  other  Lutheran  symbols 


THE   FORMULA'S   FORM.  737 

as  binding,  in  the  same  way  in  which  it  confesses  its  own 
Declaration  as  binding. 

On  the  distinction  between  a  i)rivate  dogmatic  writing 
and  a  public  standard,  Charles  F.  Schaeffer  said  many 
years  ago : — 

"  The  Form  of  Concord,  after  asserting  that  the  peace 
of  the  Church  can  be  i)ermanently  established  only  by  the 
adoption  of  a  compendious  statement,  or  type  of  doctrine 
derived  from  the  word  of  God,  proceeds  to  declare  that 
this  compendious  form  of  doctrine  ought  to  consist  not  of 
'private  hut  of  imhlic  writings,  prepared  in  the  name  of 
the  associated  churches,  and  sanctioned  by  them,  or,  in  other 
words,  of  symbols  or  creeds  adopted  formally  by  the  law- 
ful representatives  of  the  Church  as  expressive  of  her  real 
sentiments.  " 

"  Even  the  writings  of  men  like  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
do  not  contain  our  creed  unless  these  writings  have  been 
officially  recognized  and  adopted  by  the  Church.  It  is  the 
extreme  of  injustice  to  burden  us  with  private  opinions 
which  have  never  passed  the  ordeal  of  a  public  ecclesiastical 
revision.  We  accordingly  maintain  as  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple that  no  doctrine  can  be  considered  as  a  Lutheran  doc- 
trine unless  it  be  taught  in  the  acknowledged  standards  or 
symbolical  books."  ' 

The  forms  used  in  the  Formula  are  not  of  a  private  or 
dogmatic,  but  of  a  Confessional  character:  "  TFe  helieve, 
teach  and  confess."  So,  also,  the  rejection  or  condemnation 
of  false  doctrine  is  symbolic ;  and  in  this,  too,  the  exact 
Confessional  form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  followed, 
only  more  fully :  '^  They  teach." 

The  Rejection,  or  Antithesis,  is  important.  Modern  feel- 
ing hesitates  at  the  bold  and  outspoken  condemnation  of 
error.  It  would  tread  more  softly;  and  there  are  those  who 
stumble  at  the  negative,  or  condemnative,  clauses,  even  of 


•  Book  of  Concord,  II,  535. 
^  Ev.  Rev.,  I,  p.  464. 


738        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  Augsburg  Confession,  drawn  up  by  Melanchthou  him- 
self. We  must  not  forget  that  the  Scripture '  is  as  clear 
and  frequent  in  its  condemnations  as  in  its  affirmations — 
though  much  modern  preaching  is  not  true  to  Scripture 
in  this  respect,  but  tones  down  and  omits  its  minatory  ele- 
ment; and  that  the  Confessions  are  but  faithfully  following 
their  rule  of  faith  in  bearing  honest  testimony  against,  as 
well  as  in  favor  of,  that  which  is  Scriptural. 

In  the  second  place,  we  must  also  remember  that  we 
learn  most  by  the  presentation  of  a  doctrine  in  its  antago- 
nisms. The  mere  affirmation  is  too  smooth  to  stir  the  activ- 
ity of  the  mind  and  the  experience  of  the  soul ;  but  when 
the  false  is  set  in  its  own  glaring  contrast  to  the  true,  our 
mind  and  spirit  awaken  to  the  real  nature  of  both.  This 
is  doubtless  the  reason  why  God  permits  history  to  develope 
by  extremes ;  and  why  experience,  in  all  its  bitter  and  appar- 
ently unnecessarily  tragic  contrasts,  is  the  most  effective 
teacher. 

So  long  as  the  positive  facts  were  new  and  not  firmly 
grounded  in  the  Church's  consciousness,  L  e.,  so  long  as 
Christianity  had  not  yet  conquered  the  world,  the  positive 
form  of  statement,  as  found  in  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene 
Creeds,  was  most  wholesome.  But  already  in  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  the  necessity  of  impressing  the  older  and  more  worn 
truth  by  contrast  began  to  be  felt,  and  the  condemnatory 
begins'  to  appear. 

Much  more  so  would  this  be  the  case  after  a  thousand 
years  more  of  the  reign  of  external  Christianity.  It  was 
the  very  hardness  and  settled  character  of  the  traditional 
wrong  in  the  case  of  the  Pharisees  of  the  Xew  Testament, 
and  of  Judaism  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  brought  forth 
the  sternest  denunciations  of  the  Saviour.  He  was  more 
earnest  and  terrible  in  His  denunciation  *  than  are  any 
of  the  Creeds. 


•  Via.   Chap.   VI. 
•lb. 


THE   FORMULA' 8   FORM.  739 

Moreover,  a  Confession,  in  testifying  to  a  doctrine,  is 
expected  to  draw  the  line.  This  is  the  one  difficult  thing  in 
judgment  of  the  truth.  For  this  purpose,  namely,  to  draw 
the  line,  in  earthly  affairs,  the  most  solemn  tribunals,  the 
supreme  courts  of  our  laud,  have  been  erected ;  and,  if  the 
Church  is  to  be  guided  aright,  this  difficult  duty  should 
also  be  undertaken  in  the  symbols  that  speak  for  her  funda- 
mental and  determinative  principles.  Hence,  for  these 
good  and  various  reasons,  the  "  reaction"  of  the  doctrine,  the 
negative  declaration,  no  less  than  the  positive,  should  be 
heartily  received  and  openly  confessed. 

And  there  is  a  wider  view-point  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion in  this  connection.  The  Church  in  her  Confessions  is 
always  on  the  defensive.  Starting  with  the  substance  of 
Christ  in  its  lowest  and  most  compact  terms,  lier  Confessions 
have  never  been  extended  a  single  point  beyond  what  was 
needed  for  protection  and  defense.  They  have  never  been 
unfolded  and  expanded  a  priori,  that  is  with  a  desire  simply 
to  cover  the  field  of  possible  positive  faith,  but  always  to 
check  the  spread  and  heal  the  Church  of  error. 

The  spores  of  error  like  those  of  weeds  are  more  prolific 
than  the  seeds  of  truth,  and  with  every  succeeding  century's 
development  of  civilization  and  philosophy,  the  sheer  burden 
of  education  in  secular  no  less  than  in  religious  development 
becomes  ever  more  heavy.  This  is  one  of  the  penalties  of 
life  in  a  world  old  with  thought  and  action.  What  was  once 
only  a  germ  becomes  multitudinous  in  its  unfoldings  and 
branchings.  But  in  each  case,  in  the  Confession,  it  is  those 
who  introduce  the  variation,  the  error  that  requires  ad- 
ditional discrimination,  tliat  are  responsible  for  the  ad- 
ditional bulk  of  Confessional  statement,  and  not  the  Church. 
In  reply  then  to  the  call  for  smaller  and  fewer  creeds  in  our 
day,  a  cry  often  born  of  modern  impatience  and  ignorance, 
we  say  there  never  were  so  many  errors  afloat  as  now.  While 
modern  forms  must  be  met  by  vital  statement,  the  latter 
cannot  omit  or  evade  the  complicated  facts  as  they  actually 


740        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

exist,  in  order  to  be  more  popular  and  more  elementary, 
without  suffering  from  the  shallowness  that  accompanies 
merely  popular  forms  of  statement. 

That  the  Formula  is  "  a  Commentary,"  in  the  sense  that 
it  is  an  exposition  not  independent  in  form  and  matter, 
but  leaning  upon  previous  Confessions  for  both — upon  what 
has  been  made  public  and  acknowledged  as  standard  in  the 
public  mind — i.  e.,  that  it  is  interpretative  and  not  construc- 
iive,  may  be  admitted;  if,  therewith,  we  accej^t  the  inter- 
pretation as  part  and  parcel,  and  as  of  equal  Confessional 
authority,  with  the  original.  '" 

But  even  here  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Formula 
is  not  a  commentary  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word.  It 
does  not  "  comment "  either  upon  the  text  or  upon  the 
formal  material  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  It  leans  only 
upon  the  topics  of  the  Confession,  and  its  presentation  of 
these  topics,  both  in  form  and  in  subject-matter,  is  inde- 
pendent and  whole.  It  is  a  "  commentary "  of  the  same 
order  as  Virgil  is  a  "  commentary  "  on  Homer,  or  as  Deu- 
teronomy is  a  "  commentary  "  on  Leviticus  and  Numbers. 

Granting,  then,  that  the  Formula  is  a  commentary,  it  is 
evident  that  the  work  of  comment  is  not  its  sole,  nor  its  most 
important  and  final  function.  In  its  own  words,  it  "  sets 
forth,"  but  it  also  "  reconciles  "  "  for  all  future  time."  Its 
intention  in  doing  so  is  to  become  a  Confessional  standard. 
If  it  has  failed  as  a  standard,  it  is  not  a  commentary,  but  a 
standard  only  partially  accepted,  and  only  partially  attain- 
ing its  object. 

In  withholding  Confessional  authority  from  the  Formula, 
it  is  possible  to  vary  the  descriptive  figure  applied  to  the 
work.  Instead  of  drawing  an  illustrative  term  from  the 
exegetical  field,  and  calling  the  Formula  a  ^'Commentary," 
the  term  may  be  taken  from  systematic  theology,  and  the 


"  As  an  approved  judicial  decision,  and  not  merely  an  argumentative  opinion 
ou  the  original. 


THE    FORMULA'S   FOBM.  741 

Formula  called  a  "  Dogmatic."  "  The  Formula,"  says  the 
objector,  "  is  not  a  Confession,  but  a  good,  yet  unauthori- 
tative work  on  the  dogma  of  the  Church." 

That  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  not  a  "  Dogmatic 
Treatise  "  is  apparent  at  the  first  glance.  Dogmatics  are 
not  written  by  half  a  dozen  authors  in  conjunction;  and 
then  sent  throughout  the  Church  to  be  tested  and  criticised 
at  Conferences  and  Synods  called  for  that  purpose.  Dog- 
matics are  not  signed  and  subscribed  to  by  nine  thousand 
confessors.  !Neither  are  they  written  in  symbolical  form, 
nor  avowedly  for  posterity.  Neither  do  they  depend  for 
their  principle  of  unity  upon  symbols  of  the  Church,  nor 
do  they  usually  confine  their  discussiim  to  loci  that  have 
been  the  subject  of  controversy. 

There  can  be  no  question  on  this  point.  The  Formula  is 
either  a  Symbolical  Book  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  or  it  is 
a  private  and  party  Confession.  It  is  not  a  Dogmatic. 
The  signers  to  the  Preface  declare  that  "  they  have  been 
most  grievously  accused  as  being  unable  to  decide  on  any- 
thing concerning  their  faith,  as  certain" ;  and  as  therefore 
"  fabricating  new  Confessions  almost  every  year,  yea,  in- 
deed, every  month."  " 

Hence  they  "  once  more  declnre  and  testify  before  God 
and  all  mortals"  that,  in  their  Declaration,  they  are  "not 
introducing  a  new  Confession,  or  one  diiferent  from  that 
presented  in  1530,"  but  that  they  wish  "  to  conduct  our 
Churches  and  schools  first  of  all,  indeed,  to  the  f(juiitains 
of  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  the  Creeds,  and  then  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession."  "  "We  mean  that  doctrine,  which,  hav- 
ing been  derived  from  the  Prophetic  and  Apostolic  Scrip- 
tures, is  contained  in  the  three  ancient  Creeds,  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  presented  in  15-30,  then  in  the  Apology, 
in  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  lastly  in  both  the  Cate- 
chisms. 


"Preface,  Book  of  Concord  (Jacobs),  p.  15. 
"Jb.,  p.  18. 


743         THE   LU  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

"...  Therefore,  we  also  have  determined  not 
to  depart  even  a  finger's  breadth  either  from  the  things 
themselves  or  from  the  phrases  which  are  employed  con- 
cerning them ;  but,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  aiding  us,  to 
persevere  constantly,  with  the  greatest  harmony,  in  this 
godly  agreement,  and  we  intend  to  examine  all  controver- 
sies according  to  this  true  norm  and  declaration  of  the 
purer  doctrine." 

When  it  was  perceived  that  the  Declaration  of  the  For- 
mula agreed  with  God's  Word  and  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  signers  of  the  Preface  "  publicly  bore  witness  concern- 
ing it  with  heart,  mouth  and  hand.  Wherefore  that  godly 
agreement  is  called,  and  perpetually  irill  he,  not  only  the 
harmonious  and  concordant  Confession  of  some  few  of  our 
theologians,  but,  in  general,  of  the  Ministers  and  rectors  of 
schools,  one  and  all,  in  our  provinces  and  realms."  "  This 
language  speaks  for  itself.  The  real  reason  for  reducing 
the  Formula  to  the  level  of  a  Dogmatic  lies  in  the  sub- 
stance of  the  doctrine,  and  does  not  arise  purely  from  the 
character  of  its  outer  form.  The  great  and  substantial 
objection  against  the  Formula  to-day  is  the  objection  of 
the  Philippists  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  viz.,  that  it  does 
not  represent  every  type  of  Lutheranism.  In  shutting  out 
the  extreme  Philippists,  and  the  extreme  Gnesio-Lutherans, 
and  in  exposing  the  waverings  of  ^lelanchthon,  it  has,  in 
the  eyes  of  some  Lutherans,  narrowed  itself  from  a  generic 
to  a  party  document.  Several  important  facts  are  not  to 
be  lost  sight  of  at  this  point:  The  first  of  these  is,  that 
the  persistence  of  ]V[elanchthon  and  his  extreme  party  fol- 
lowers was  responsible  for  the  disintegration  that  the  For- 
mula repaired ;  the  second  is,  that  Andreae  actually  made 
his  first  attempt  at  union  on  the  broader  basis,  and  failed, 
because  neither  the  extreme  Philippist  nor  the  extreme 
Gnesio-Lutheran  would  unite  on  a  central  Confession ;  and, 
thus   Providence   so   ordered,   in   the  third   place,   that   the 


"  Book  of  Concord,  p.  13. 


THE   FORMULA'S   FORM.  743 

Confession  in  the  Formula  was  to  be  the  true  ^Vord  of 
God  unadulterated  with  human  changef ulness ;  and  party 
expediencies  were  not  to  moderate  it  either  in  this  or  in 
that  direction. 

Melanchthon  was  not  slighted  in  the  Formula.  He  is 
mentioned  with  respect;  but  he  is  not  mentioned  as  an 
authority,  like  Luther,  because  his  testimony  did  not  give 
forth  "  no  uncertain  sound."  His  spirit  and  method,  on 
their  good  side,  are  recognized  and  employed  in  the  For- 
mula, as  might  be  expected  at  the  hand  of  Melanchthon's 
own  pupils. 

There  was  one  to  whom  the  reputation  of  Melanchthon 
was  much  dearer  than  to  those  who,  in  the  Twentieth  Cen- 
tury, seem  to  glory  in  his  doctrinal  variations.  "  Xo  one 
was  in  so  eminent  a  sense  the  pupil  of  Melanchthon,  as 
was  Chemnitz.  Connected  with  him  by  family  ties,  and 
living  under  his  roof,  the  studies  of  Chemnitz  were  guided 
by  Melanchthon,  not  as  a  public  teacher,  but  with  the  close 
contact  of  personal  interest  and  intimacy.  As  a  teacher  of 
theology,  Chemnitz  lectured  on  Melanchthon's  'Loci,'  and 
Melanchthon  himself  was  occasionally  in  the  audience.  The 
fidelity  of  the  younger  theologian  to  the  stricter  type  of 
Lutheran  theology,  and  his  responsibility  as  its  ablest  de- 
fender, never  led  him  into  harsh  denunciations  of  the  man 
to  whom  he  confesses  that  he  owed  so  much."  And  he  was 
the  leading  theologian  of  the  Formula.  He  saw  its  necessity, 
he  guarded  its  form,  he  confessed  it  with  heart  and  mouth, 
and  he  explicated  and  defended  its  doctrine. 

Schaff,  defining  the  nature  of  a  Confession  in  his  Creeds 
of  Christendom,  avers  that  neither  the  dogmatic,  the  doc- 
trinal nor  the  polemic  form  of  a  creed  renders  it  any  the  less 
a  Confession.  He  says :  "  A  creed  may  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  Christian  doctrine  and  practice,  or  contain  only 
such  points  as  are  deemed  fundamental  and  sufficient,  or  as 
have  been  disputed.  It  may  be  declarative,  or  indicative  in 
form.    It  may  be  brief  and  popular  (as  the  Apostles'  and  the 


744         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Nicene  Creeds),  for  general  use  in  catechetical  instruction 
and  at  baptism;  or  more  elaborate  and  theological,  for  min- 
isters and  teachers,  as  a  standard  of  pnblic  doctrine  (the 
symbolical  Books  of  the  Reformation  period).  In  the  latter 
case  a  confession  of  faith  is  always  the  result  of  dogmatic 
controversy,  and  more  or  less  directly  or  indirectly  polemical 
against  opposing  error." 

Another  objection  frequently  urged  against  the  Formula 
is  the  sharpness  and  the  very  evident  logic  of  its  form. 
But  when  we  remember  the  subtlety  and  the  difficulty  of 
the  subject-matter,  the  emphasis  given  to  just  such  state- 
ment by  Melanchthon,  and  the  whole  object  to  be  attained, 
we  may  be  induced  to  admit  that  it  would  have  been  diffi- 
cult in  that  age  to  embody  the  substance  in  any  sujierior 
form." 

The  Epitome  is  the  Confession  Proper;  and  the  Ample 
Declaration  is  its  establishment.  The  material  developed  is 
the  eleven  articles,  in  the  order  of  the  articles  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  The  Epitome  first  briefly  states  the  case 
in  controversy  (status  controversiae)  ;  approves  the  pure 
teaching  (pars  affirmativa)  ;  and  disapproves  the  wrong 
teaching  (pars  negativa).  The  fundamental  exposition 
(Solida  Declaratio)  treats  of  the  articles  in  connection  with 
each  other.    Then  there  follows  an  appendix  of  heresies.  " 

Thus,  the  method  of  the  Formula  is  to  present  the  doc- 
trine, in  each  case,  in  simplest  witnes^s  form,  and  follow 
with  the  larger  ex})osition.  It  is  suitable  to  its  purpose, 
as  a  Confession,  as  the  varying  forms  of  the  oecumenical 


"  The  form  of  thesis  and  antithesis,  used  by  I^uther  at  the  opening  of  the 
Ileformation.  and  still  more  so  by  Melanclithon  in  his  disputations,  has  been 
brolven  by  the  modern  method  of  indiuction,  but  is  often  employed  to-day 
by  the  speculative  and  sketchy  theologians  of  the  age.  The  method  in  the 
Formula  is  a  beautiful  combination  of  Luther's  frankness  with  Melanchthon's 
logic.  "  As  Melanchthon's  views  of  the  Teaching  and  the  Church  remained  the 
norm,  so  the  influence  of  his  dogmatic  is  clearly  to  be  perceived  in  the  in- 
dividual results  arrived  at  in  the  Formula." — Seeherc/,  on  "  Formula  "  in 
Hauck. 

"  The  testimony  of  the  witnesses  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  etc.,  In  fight 
articles,  by  Andreae  and  Chemnitz,  is  not  a  part  of  the  Formula. 


THE   FORMULA'S   FORM.  745 

and  the  other  Lutheran  ('Onfessions  are  suitable  to  their, 
purpose. 

That  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  not  intended  to  be 
sharp,  controversial  and  condemnatory,  but  to  draw  the 
teeth  out  of  the  highly  inflamed  and  controversial  discus- 
sions raging  in  the  Church,  may  be  seen  from  the  Preface : — ^** 

"  Godly  men,  lovers  of  peace,  judged  that  the  increasing 
dissension  could  best  be  met  by  an  accurate  explanation  of 
the  controverted  articles  from  the  Word  of  God,  which 
would  reject  and  condemn  the  false  dogmas ;  and  clearly 
present  the  divine  truth.  This  would  not  only  silence  adver- 
saries, but  would  show  the  more  simple  and  godly  how  to 
act  in  these  dissensions,  and  to  avoid  future  corruptions  of 
doctrine." 

And  could  anything  be  more  true  of  our  own  day  than 
the  following :  "  Besides,  this  matter  is  of  importance  also 
in  this  respect,  viz.,  that  troublesome  and  contentious  men, 
who  do  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  bound  to  any  formula 
of  the  purer  doctrine,  may  not  have  the  liberty,  according 
to  their  good  pleasure,  to  excite  controversies  which  fur- 
nish gi-ound  for  offence,  and  to  publish  and  contend  for 
extravagant  opinions.  Por  the  result  of  these  things,  at 
length,  is,  that  the  purer  doctrine  is  obscured  and  lost, 
and  notliing  is  transmitted  to  posterity  except  academical 
opinions  and  suspension  of  judgment."  " 


"  Book  of  Concord,  p.  11. 
"  Ih.,  p.  10. 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  ANSWER  OF  THE  FORMULA'S  SUBJECT- 
MATTER,  TOUCHING  THE  QUESTION,  IS 
THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD  A 
CONFESSION  ? 

The  Subjects  Treated  were  Subjects  of  the  Day — They  were  Agitating  the  Whole 
Christian  World — The  Need  of  Settling  them  was  Felt  by  the  Melanchthonians 
— The  Formula  Starts  by  Planting  itself  Firmly  on  Scripture — It  Treats  the  most 
Vital  Doctrines  of  Christianity,  Centering  All  in  Christ — The  Formula  Treats  of 
Christ :  His  Work,  Presence,  Person — It  Touches  the  greater  Questions  of 
Christian  Faith — Original  Sin — Man's  Freedom — Infused  Righteousness — Law 
or  Gospel — The  Person  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament. 

WE  ILVVE  made  our  way  through  many  stnictural 
preliminaries,  and  have  now  come  to  the  heart  of 
the  Formula.  Is  its  subject-matter  of  a  weight  and  fit- 
ness to  comport  with  the  character  of  a  standard  of  the 
Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?  Are  the  doctrines  dealt 
with  the  right  ones  for  Confessional  use  ?  We  believe  that 
they  are,  that  they  are  the  great  doctrines  to  which  the 
Church  needs  to  give  the  Confessional  weight  of  her  testi- 
mony to-day,  in  the  midst  of  the  errors  in  which  she  is 
living  and  that  are  rising  around  her. 

Let  us  begin  by  recalling  that  the  subjects  treated  in 
the  Formula  were  the  problems  of  the  day.  The  framers 
of  the  Formula  were  not  responsible  for  the  subject-matter 
with  which  the  Confession  deals.  These  questions  were  in 
the  times,  and  were  agitating  the  whole  Christian  world. 

746 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  747 

Instead  of  characterizing  these  problems  as  petty  contro- 
versies within  the  narrow  boundaries  of  a  particular  Luth- 
eranism,  the  profound  and  broad-minded  historian  will  rec- 
ognize them  as  the  great  religious  questions  that  ever  agitate 
the  human  mind;  and  as  springing,  in  the  order  of  a  natural 
and  necessary  development,  from  the  earlier  premises  of 
Protestantism;  and  as  aifecting  simultaneously  not  only 
the  Lutheran  Church,  but  the  whole  of  Sixteenth-Century 
Christianity. 

In  the  Roman  Church  they  took  the  form  of  the  Jan- 
senist  controversy;  and  in  the  Reformed  Church  they  came 
to  the  surface  in  the  Arminian  controversy;  while  in  the 
deeper  bosom  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  was  sustain- 
ing a  dual  line  of  development — on  the  one  side,  reaching 
out  and  attempting  to  approximate  to  a  common  Protes- 
tantism; and,  on  the  other  side,  unfolding,  in  successive 
conflicts,  the  specific  and  inner  quality  of  its  own  nature — 
they  came  to  a  head  in  the  Person  of  Christ,  Son  of  God 
and  Son  of  Man,  and  in  the  most  profound  sacramental 
mystery  revealed  to  man. 

If  the  Augsburg  Confession  flowed  forth  as  the  neces- 
sary witness,  of  the  earnest  soul,  awakened  by  Scripture, 
against  the  errors  of  Rome,  the  Formula  of  Concord  was 
the  outflow  of  the  same  mind  and  heart,  most  deeply  agi- 
tated in  attempting  to  find,  for  its  newly-found  doctrine 
of  salvation,  a  basis  sufficiently  grounded  in  the  Scrip- 
ture and  sufficiently  developed  to  ward  off  the  extremes 
of  Protestantism's  own  unfolding  life.  The  Formula  of 
Concord,  like  other  great  documentary  foundations  of  his- 
tory, arose  out  of  terrific  conflict  and  upheaval ;  for,  after 
the  external  struggle  had  been  won  at  Augsburg,  the  inter- 
nal weaknesses  began  to  manifest  themselves.  The  For- 
mula was  not  a  book  forced  upon  the  Church,  nor  composed 
academically  in  days  of  peace.  It  came  forth  out  of  much 
anguish  as  an  inner  necessity  and  as  the  answer  of  an 
obedient  Scriptural  conscience  to  the  needs  of  the  day.    The 


748        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

writers  of  the  Formula  say,  "  These  controversies  are  not 
mere  disputes  concerning  words."  The  subjects  are  great. 
Their  one  wish  is  a  practical  one,  viz.,  that  "  the  errors 
and  corruptions  that  have  arisen  may  be  shunned  and 
avoided  by  sincere  Christians  who  prize  the  truth  aright." 

The  historian  should  not  overlook  the  important  fact 
that  the  need  of  a  Confessional  settlement  of  the  problems 
that  were  ploughing  into  the  vitals  of  the  Church  was  felt 
as  well  on  the  Lutheran-Philippist  side.  The  attempt  to 
enlarge  and  amplify  our  Confessions  first  appeared  among 
the  Melanchthonians.  "  It  was  in  the  unionistic  part  of 
our  Church,"  says  Krauth,  "  that  the  tendency  first  ap- 
peared to  put  forth  bulky  Confessions,  and  the  necessity 
for  the  Book  of  Concord  was  largely  generated  by  the 
greatly  larger  bodies  of  doctrines  which  were  set  forth  by 
the  Philippists."  The  source  of  the  trouble  was  on  the 
broad  side  of  the  house.  Its  revered  head,  the  excellent 
Melanchthon,  was  constantly  shifting  his  ground,  treating 
truth  as  though  it  were  some  human  opinion  to  be  modified 
and  adapted  to  the  temper  of  the  hour,  and  thus  destroy- 
ing its   fundamental   stability. 

While  the  doctrinal  questions  undoubtedly  would  have 
arisen  of  themselves  within  the  heart  of  Lutheranism,  the 
tortuousness,  and  prolongation,  and  fierceness  of  the  con- 
flict, was  in  no  small  part  due  to  the  haziness  which  over- 
shadowed the  whole  evangelical  field  of  truth.  To  again 
quote  Krauth :'  "  We  have  twenty-eight  large  volumes  of 
Melanchthon's  writings — and,  at  this  hour,  impartial  and 
learned  men  are  not  agreed  as  to  what  were  his  views  on 
some  of  the  profoundest  questions  of  Church  doctrine,  on 
which  Melanchthon  w^as  writing  all  his  life !  " 

This  same  statement,  it  is  true,  may  also,  in  some  places, 
be  turned  against  Luther ;  for  he  can  often  be  quoted  on 
both  sides  of  the  same  question.     But  his  utterances,  not- 


*  Con,  Bef.,  p.   291. 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  749 

withstanding,  were  all  genuine  insights,  and  not  accommo- 
dative adaptations;  and,  therefore,  serve,  in  the  end,  only 
to  swell  the  fuller  harmony  and  strength  of  the  ultimate 
principle  which  the  Church  maintains. 

At  its  start  the  Formula  plants  itself  firmly  on  Scrlp- 
ture;  and  to-day  the  very  first  thing  we  need  to  know  in 
any  of  the  movements  of  our  Twentieth  Century  is  the 
attitude  which  their  promulgators  take  toward  Scripture.  * 
Without  limitation,  the  Concordia  sets  up  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  as  the  "  only 
judge,  rule  and  standard  by  which  all  other  writings  are 
to  be  judged."  This  great  principle,  not  announced  in 
any  of  the  oecumenical  or  earlier  Lutheran  Confessions, 
of  the  Scriptura  unica  regula,  disposes  of  many  Sixteenth 
Century  difiiculties;  and  relieves  the  Formula  of  Concord 
itself,  and  the  full  Confessional  principle  of  our  Church, 
from  the  criticism  that  is  often  made  upon  it,  viz.,  that 
we  lift  the  Confessions  to  the  place  of  the  Bible.  In  order 
to  prevent  this  very  thing,  the  Formula  has  declared  the 
Scriptures  to  be  the  only  rule,  and  expressly  says  that 
the  symbols  of  the  Church,  including  itself,  *  are  not  judges, 
but  only  a  witness  and  declaration  of  the  faith.'  ^ 

It  is  admitted  that  the  Formula  is  the  only  Confession 
that  brings  out  the  relation  of  our  Church  to  Scripture. 
''  The  Augsburg  Confession,"  says  SchafF,  "  does  not  mention 
the  Bible  principle  at  all,  although  it  is  based  upon  it  through- 
out ;  the  Articles  of  Schmalkald  mention  it  incidentally ;  and 
the  Formula  of  Concord  more  formally."  '*    Schaff  is  per- 


^  That  this  Confession  seemed  so  thoroughly  in  accord  with  Scripture  as  to 
have  been  regarded  as  semi-inspired  by  some  at  a  later  day,  does  not  militate 
against  the  Confessional  strength  of  the  Fonnula,  which  has  taken  unusual 
precaution  to  bear  testimony  against  this  very  thing.  If  there  are  Lutherans 
of  the  Seventeenth  Century  who  have  unduly  worshiped  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  are  there  not  Lutherans  of  several  centuries  later  who  pay  almo?t 
similar  tribute  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  the  sufficient  fountain  and  the 
palladium  of  such  doctrine  as  they  deem  it  well  to  confess. 

'  E.  g. :  "  The  .  .  .  symbols  .  .  .  are  ...  a  witness  and  de- 
claration of  the  faith." — Intro,   to  Epit.,   B.   C,   492. 

*>  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,   p.   216. 

51 


750        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

haps  not  quite  correct  in  this  statement,  for  its  Preface  tells 
us  that  the  object  of  the  Angustana  is  to  show  "  what  manner 
of  doctrine  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  pure  Word 
of  God  has  been  set  forth  in  our  lands  and  churches;"  and 
tlie  conclusion  of  the  Augustana  declares  that  "  nothing  has 
been  received  on  our  part,  against  Scripture  or  the  Church 
Catholic ;"  and  that  "  we  are  ready,  God  willing,  to  present 
ampler  information  according  to  the  Scriptures." 

But  the  Formula  explicitly  lays  down  the  Scripture  prin- 
ciple as  the  basis  for  the  whole  Lutheran  Confession.  The 
"  Comprehensive  Summary  "  is  the  teaching  or  sum  of  Holy 
Scripture  as  it  is  gathered  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Church. 
The  Formula's  Introduction  proceeds  immediately  upon  the 
Evangelical  principle  of  Scripture,  and  recognizes  the  Scrip- 
ture as  the  one  rule  and  standard  of  faith,  as  the  touch-stone 
according  to  which  all  doctrine  is  to  be  esteemed  and  judged. 
The  Confessions  of  the  old  Church  and  the  Confessional 
writings  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  are  acknowledged  as 
the  true  and  faitlil'ul  extract  of  Sci'ipturo,  as  the  epitomical 
explanation  of  the  Bible,  as  the  sum  and  type  of  doctrine,  a3 
the  unanimous  certain  universal  form  of  doctrine  '  from  and 
according  to  which,  because  they  are  taken  out  of  God's 
Word,  all  other  writings,  in  so  far  as  they  are  to  be  approved 
and  accepted,  are  to  be  judged.'  xVll  other  writings,  except 
the  Confessional  writings,  all  '  private  writings,'  are  authori- 
tative only  i?i  so  far  as  they  are  proven  true  by  the  Confes- 
sion, only  q  u  a  t  e  n  u  s  .  This  is  the  relation  particularly 
to  all  Tradition:  it  is  to  be  prized  as  an  inherited  good,  but 
its  value  is  only  q  u  a  t  e  n  u  s  ,  that  is  in  so  far  as  it  is  not 
contrary  to  the  Scripture.  But  the  Formula  of  Concord  by 
no  means  intends  to  subject  the  Churchly  Confession  to  a 
q  u  a  t  e  n  u  s  .  To  the  Formula  the  Confession  is  authorita- 
tive because,  not  in  how  far  it  is  in  accord  with  the  Word  of 
God.  Thus  already  in  the  Introduction  the  Large  and  the 
Small  Catechisms  are  expressly  recognized  as  the  Bible  of  the 
laity. 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  Y51 

Therefore  the  Holy  Scripture  is  to  be  accorded  the  position 
of  norma  n  o  r  m  a  n  s  ,  the  standard  that  rules  every- 
thing; the  Confession  as  norma  normata,  the  standard 
already  judged  by  the  highest  standard,  which  serves  as  a 
standard  itself  just  on  that  account."'' 

The  subjects  treated  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  are  the 
most  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity.  All  of  them  pertain 
either  to  man's  salvation  or  to  the  person  and  nature  of 
man's  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ.  The  Formula  begins,  like 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  man  himself,  proceeds  to 
what  Christ  has  done  for  man,  and  shows  how  Christ  was 
able  to  accomplish  such  a  work  for  man. 

Here,  then,  is  the  one  symbol  of  the  ages  which  treats 
almost  exclusively  of  Christ, — of  His  work.  His  presence, 
His  person.  Here  is  the  Christ-symbol  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  One  might  almost  say  that  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord is  a  developed  witness  of  Luther's  explanation  of  the 
Second  and  Third  Articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  meet- 
ing the  modern  errors  of  Protestantism — those  cropping 
up  from  the  Sixteenth  to  the  Twentieth  Century,  in  a 
really  modern  way. 

As  usually  represented  by  those  unfriendly  to  it,  the 
Formula  of  Concord  is  the  product  of  an  extreme,  small- 
visioned  sectarian  Lutheran  ecclesiasticism,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  an  abstract  theological  philosophy.  The  reverse 
is  the  case.*  The  Augsburg  Confession  has  an  article  on 
the  abstract  doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  the  Formula  has 
none.  The  Augsburg  Confession  has  no  less  than  two  arti- 
cles on  the  Church,  and  one  on  ecclesiastical  order;  the 
Formula   has   none.  °      The   Augsburg   Confession   has   one 


8ti  Goschel.  Die  Concordien  Formel  nach  ihrer  Geschichte,  Lehre  v.  Kirch- 
lichen  Bedeiitunp,   p.   42. 

*  Sehatf  in  his  extensive  treatment  of  the  controversies  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century  undesignedly  pays  the  Formula  the  highest  tribute,  as  to  its  handling 
of  these  problems  for  the  modern  reader,  when  he  says,  "  We  notice  them  in 
the  order  of  the  *  Form  of  Concord.'  " — Creeds,  I.  p.  288. 

*  Unless   the   Article   on   Church   Rites    be   considered   one.  ^ 


753        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

article  on  Private  Confession,  and  one  on  the  Use  of  the 
Sacraments;  the  Formula  has  none.  That  the  Formula 
really  deals  with  living  and  vital  issues,  as  much  so  as  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in 
the  two  recent  and  complete  discussions  of  our  Church 
doctrines,  those  by  Dr.  Valentine  (Christian  Theology)  and 
by  Dr.  Jacobs  (Surmnary  of  the  Christian  Faith),  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  is  mentioned  as  often  as  is  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  * 

The  discussions  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  we  repeat, 
touch  the  greater  questions  of  our  Christian  faith.  Every 
one  of  them  is  a  large  and  live  question  in  the  Protes- 
tantism of  the  Twentieth  Century.  The  subjects  treated 
in  the  Formula  are  in  truth  the  hurning  subjects  in  theology 
at  the  present  day,  the  ones  on  which  the  Church  of  the 
Twentieth  Century  must  speak  confessionally.  At  the  head 
of  them  we  find  the  question  touching  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Scripture,  whose  antithesis  to-day  is  the  Negative 
Criticism  and  the  New  Theology.  This  is  followed  by  the 
Lutheran  teaching  on  Original  Sin,  whose  antithesis  to-day 
is  the  Evolution  of  man's  natural  powers  unfolding  to  per- 
fection. Then  follows,  third,  the  doctriue  as  to  Free  Will, 
whose  antithesis  to-day  is  a  double  one:  I. — First,  the  reign 
of  Natural  Law  over  man;  second,  man's  mind,  soul  and 
conscience  are  a  product  of  heredity  and  environment.  II.— 
Man's  will  is  able  to  decide  for  salvation  through  new 
powers  bestowed  by  God.  This  is  the  subtle  Synergism 
which  has  infected  nearly  the  whole  of  modern  Evangelical 
Protestantism,  and  which  is  or  has  been  taught  in  institu- 
tions bearing  the  name  of  our  own  Church.  Speaking  of 
this  synergistic  teaching  in  the  work,  Christian  Theology, 
Jacobs  says: — 

"The  real  question  involved  in  the  discussion  is  this:   '  Is  faith  God's  work  in 


"  Dr.  Valentine  puts  both  on  a  par,  so  far  a^  quotation  Is  concerned.  In  re- 
fprring  to  both  an  equal  number  of  times,  Dr.  Jacobs  refers  to  the  Augsburg 
'."^iife.ssion  fifty-seven  times,   and  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  forty-four  times. 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  753 

man,  or  is  it  a  work  of  man   wrought  through  new  powers  bestowed  by  God  ? ' 

In  assailing  tlie  afVirmation  of  the  former  by  the  Formula  of  Concord,  [the  au- 
thor] arrays  himself  also  against  the  Augsburg  Confession.  'The  Holy  Ghost  is 
given,'  says  Art.  V,  *  who  worketh  faith  where  and  when  it  pleaseth  God,  in 
them  that  hear  the  Gospel.*  It  is  the  question  over  again  of  the  '  Variata '  as 
opposed  to  the  '  Invariata.'  " 

The  fourth  living  doctrine  discussed  by  the  Formula  is 
that  of  Justification  by  Faith,  the  doctrine  that  is  at  this 
moment  being  completely  *^  readjusted "  in  English  The- 
ology so  as  to  correspond  with  the  old  doctrine  of  "  infused 
righteousness,"  developed  in  the  Osiandrian  controversy,  one 
of  the  errors  that  led  up  to  the  necessity  of  the  Confession 
of  the  Formula. 

The  fifth  subject  of  the  Formula  is  the  Testimony  as 
to  Good  Works,  whose  antithesis  to-day  is  reaching  one's 
destiny  and  salvation  by  character. 

The  sixth  truth  taught  in  the  Formula  is  the  Law  and 
the  Gospel,  whose  antithesis  to-day  is  a  modern  preach- 
ing which  places  repentance  and  the  punishment  of  God 
in  the  background,  and  emphasizes  only  the  Fatherly  Love 
of  God. 

The  seventh  doctrine  of  the  Formula  is  that  teaching 
which  is  often  perverted  to-day  by  loose  Christians  as  found 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  viz.,  the  Christian's  use  of 
the  Law,  and  whose  antithesis  is  that  Christian  liberty  is 
license. 

The  antithesis  of  the  Seventh  Article,  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, is  the  current  view  that  the  Communion  is  chiefly  a 
meal  to  signify  fraternal  fellowship  among  all  Christians; 
and  the  antithesis  of  the  Eighth  Article  is  that  Christ  is 
only  a  perfect  man,  inspired  and  elevated  in  the  order  of 
nature.  The  antithesis  of  the  Ninth  Article,  on  the  De- 
scensus, is  the  failure  to  recognize  Christ's  power  over 
evil.  Of  the  Eleventh  Article  the  antithesis  to-day  is  the 
over-exaltation  of  ceremonies  and  the  entrance  into  litur- 
gical extremes,  on  the  one  hand ;  and,  on  the  other,  tlioir 
complete  rejection  as  foolish  mummery.      Of  the   Twelfth 


754        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Article,  on  Predestination,  the  antithesis  is  the  current 
belief  and  assertion  that  "  men  have  a  right  to  be  saved  " ; 
and  of  the  last  Article,  on  Sectarians,  the  present-day 
antithesis  is  the  position  apparently  assumed  on  all  sides 
tliat  the  Church  is  a  human  organization  in  which  men 
of  one  temperament  flock  together  to  express  their  own 
religious  feelings;  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  utter  his 
own  views  in  every  pulpit,  that  all  pulpits  should  be  open 
to  all  teachings,  since  ''  truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail," 
and  that  no  theological  errors  are  important,  nor  to  be  sup- 
pressed, since,  after  all,-  heresy  is  only  half-truth  groping 
its  way  through  to  the  fuller  possession  of  all  sides  of  every 
subject.  It  would  be  diflicult  to  find  a  more  modern  cata- 
logue of  subjects,  or  one  on  which  the  ].utheran  Church  is 
more  needed  for  testimony  and  confession. 

Let  us  look  at  this  important  matter  somewhat  more  in 
detail.  The  truths  testified  to  and  confessed  in  the  For- 
mula are  at  the  very  heart  of  Christ's  redemption,  and 
they  are  treated  not  only  with  a  face  toward  Rome,  as  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  with  a  face  toward  radical- 
ism. They  set  up  the  true  Faith  in  the  midst  of  its  two 
extremes.  They  give  us  the  central  view  of  the  questions 
concerning  sin  and  gi*ace,  justification  by  faith,  the  use  of 
good  works,  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  the  Lord's  Su])]ier, 
and  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ.  To  these  are  added 
a  discussion  on  church  ceremonies  (a  living  question  to- 
day, as  we  have  seen),  one  on  predestination  (a  living  ques- 
tion), and  a  catalogue  of  wrong  doctrines  and  wrong  teach- 
ing's of  all  kinds. 

The  first  article  goes  to  the  root  of  humanity's  plight. 
It  discusses  the  source  of  all  the  evil  in  man,  original  sin 
— not  in  the  hard  and  dry  scholastic  manner  of  Calvinism, 
nor  in  the  superficial  manner  of  Romanism,  but  with  a 
thorough  grasp  of  Scripture  and  a  modern  touch.  The 
question  analyzed  is  whether  original  sin  is  the  nature  of 
man  itself,   or  a   (•orru])tion   of  his   nature;   and   the  errors 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  755 

disposed  of  are  those  which  inhere,  in  large  part,  in  the 
loose  and  liberal  Christianity  of  to-day. 

No  one  can  discuss  theology,  especially  original  sin,  v/ith- 
out  at  least  stumbling  across  the  theological  question  of 
free  will.  This  is  not  a  philosophic  doctrine.'  Valentine 
himself  is  not  able  to  omit  a  consideration  of  it ;  and  though 
he  believes,  as  we  do,  that  "  the  weary  metaphysical  strife  " 
is  unnecessary,  yet,  of  the  theological  question,  he  says, 
"  This  subject  is  one  of  great  importance,  deeply  integrated 
in  Christian  theology." '  The  Scriptural  teaching  as  to 
man's  freedom  and  his  relation  to  the  converting  grace  of 
God  is  one  of  the  most  fundamental  and  far-reaching  of 
all  the  principles  of  Christianity.  The  New  Testament 
devotes  much  space  to  it.  It  was  the  subject  of  the  great 
controversy  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius.  All  unevan- 
gelical  and  much  nominally  evangelical  modern  preaching 
is  vitiated  by  errors  on  this  subject.  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession had  discussed  it,  and  on  the  right  foundation;  but, 
in  later  years,  Melanchthon  had  taught  a  form  of  Synergism, 
"  a  refined  evangelical  modification  of  semi-Pelagianism." 

This  doctrine  of  Synergism,  or  a  partnership  between 
man  and  Ciod  in  the  work  and  merit  of  salvation,  is  a 
natural  and  tempting  belief  of  the  human  mind,  and  one 
which  is  continuously  injurious  to  the  free  grace  of  God, 
and  to  a  perfectly  pure  faith  in  man.  The  testimony  of 
the  Formula  on  this  point  is  admirably  clear,  simple  and 
useful;  and  it  leads  to  the  central  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith. 

In  the  Augsburg  Confession  justification  had  been  prop- 
erly treated.  Lutheranism  had  always  taught  clearly  the 
distinction  between  justification  as  an  external  act  of  God 


'  The  philosophic  problem  of   free   will   or  necessity   is   a   question   in   a   dif- 
ferent field. 

•  Christian  Theology,  I,  p.  464. 

*  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  270. 


756         TEE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

freeing  man  in  his  relation  to  God,  and  sanctification  as 
an  internal  act  of  God  in  man;  and  had  viewed  sanctifica- 
tion as  the  necessary  effect  of  justification. 

But  it  was  a  Lutheran  university  professor,  a  speculative 
genius  of  great  learning,  who  became  the  first  Protestant 
to  assail  the  forensic  conception  of  justification,  and  who 
declared  that  the  sinner  is  made  just  by  an  infusion  of  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ,  which  is  our  righteousness.  This 
rejection  of  justification  as  a  forensic  act,  and  the  errors 
connected  with  an  infused  or  a  developing  righteousness 
in  the  human  soul,  is  the  heart  of  the  New  Theology  of 
our  day.  Since  some  latter-day  Lutherans  choose  to  resort 
to  non-denominational  encyclopedias  and  Bible  dictionaries, 
rather  than  to  the  Confessions,  for  their  theology,  let  us 
take  this  cai-dinal  principle  of  our  Church,  which  Luther 
calls  ''  the  article  of  a  standing  and  falling  Church,"  justi- 
fication by  faith,  and  see  whether  the  Lutheran  Church 
does  not  to-day  need  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  the  main- 
tenance of  this  teaching. 

The  representative  English  theological  cyclopedia  of  the 
century,  many  of  whose  articles  are  treatises  in  themselves — 
some  of  them  more  extensive  on  a  single  subject  than  the 
whole  Formula  of  Concord  with  all  its  subjects,  presents  the 
following  ex])osition  of  justification: — 


*'One  of  the  commonest  views  in  modern  theology  makes  justification  de- 
pendent on  a  real  union  with  Christ,  breaking  down  the  sharp  distinction  be- 
tween justification  and  regeneration,  and  treating  them  simply  as  aspects  of  the 
same  process.  I'aith,  on  this  view,  is  to  be  regarded  in  justification  not  simply  as 
the  reflex  of  Divine  grace,  but  as  comprehending  the  spiritual  content  of  union 
with  Christ,  and  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  ethical  life  of 
the  Christian.  Hence  this  view  of  justification  is  claimed  to  be  'ethical ';  justifi- 
cation accordii-.g  to  it  being  a  recognition  of  what  really  is  in  the  believer  his  new 
life,  as  well  pleasing  to  God.  A  reconciliation  with  the  forensic  view  is  found  in 
the  Kantian  thought  that  God  judges  by  the  ideal;  so  that  justification  appears  as 
a  prophetic  judgment,  which  sees  in  the  first  germ  of  the  new   life  its  whole  fruit. 

"This  view  is  closely  akin  to  Osiander's.  It  has  undoubtedly  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  broader  use  of  the  word  '  faith '  in  St.  Paul,  who,  as  Pfleiderer 
points   out,    often    uses    it  as    practically   equivalent  to  the  whole  of  Christianity 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  757 

{Urchristenthum,  I,  p.  250;  cf.   I  Cor.   12:  Of;  l(i:  13).  It  is  further  along 

the  line  developed  in  the  cycle  of  passages  like  Rom.  8:  17;  Gal.  2:  17;     I  Cor. 
4:  4;  9:  24,  27;  Ph.  3:  10-14,  as  previously  explained." 


So,  then,  it  is  admitted  that  the  Osiandrian  error,  which 
the  Formula  combats,  and  which  is  included  in  what  are 
often  termed  those  "  jjetty,"  "  dead,"  and  "  useless  "  "  Six- 
teenth Century "  "  Theological  controversies,"  is  "  one  of 
the  commonest  views  in  modern  theology."  If  such  is  the 
case,  it  brings  the  Formula  up  to  date,  as  to  subject-matter 
touched  on,  as  the  most  modern  and  useful  of  Lutheran 
symbols. 

It  is  true  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  also  deals  with 
this  cardinal  article,  but  in  the  cyclopedia  referred  to,  in 
differentiating  the  Iloman,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed 
doctrines,  the  Augustana  is  not  mentioned ;  while  the  For- 
mula is  discussed  and  criticised  at  length,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  historical  "  Protestant  Theology."  Says  the 
article : — 


"The  Protestant  theology,  like  St.  Paul,  found  the  revelation  of  the  divine 
grace  in  Christ,  and  His  work  for  sinners.  Here,  however,  a  considerable 
development  takes  place,  based  upon  the  mediaeval  development  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Atonement  due  to  Anselm.  The  latter  had  viewed  the  death  of  Christ  in 
the  first  place  as  a  satisfaction  to  God's  honour,  which  liberated  Him  from  the 
necessity  of  punishing  sinners,  and  in  the  second  place  as  a  merit  or  work  of 
supererogatory  obedience,  which  could  be  made  available  for  His  followers.  The 
Protestant  theology  accepted  both  these  ideas,  but  with  such  modifications  as 
made  it  possible  to  combine  them  with  the  forensic  idea  of  justification.  The 
death  of  Christ  was  viewed  not  as  a  satisfaction  to  God's  honour,  but  to  the 
penal  sanctions  of  His  Law.  To  this  was  added  His  active  obedience  to  the  Law 
in  His  life  as  a  satisfaction  to  its  positive  requirements.  The  whole  was  summed 
up  as  Christ's  active  and  passive  obedience  or  merit,  and  regarded  as  a  provision 
of  the  Divine  grace  with  a  view  to  the  justification  of  sinners.  Justification  con- 
sists in  the  gracious  imputation  of  this  two-fold  merit  or  obedience  to  the  sinner 
on  the  sole  condition  of  faith,  so  that  he  becomes  not  only  guiltless  before  the 
Law,  but  also  totally  free  from  its  claims.  This  conception  is  common  to  both  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches.  It  did  not  grow  up  all  at  once;  but  the 
roots  of  it  can  be  traced  in  the  earlier  Reformers,  and  it  finally  established  itself 
firmly  in  both  Churches.  It  is  completely  stated  in  i\\t  Formula  of  Concord 
(pars  ii.     So/tda  Vedaraiio,  Hi,  li,  15)." 


758        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

This  EA'angelical  doctrine  is  then  criticised  at  length  in 
the  cyclopedia,  as  follows : — • 

"The  conception  of  Christ's  death  as  a  satisfaction  to  the  penal  sanctions  of 
the  Divine  law,  on  the  ground  of  which  God  forgives  sinners,  may,  indeed,  be 
accepted  as  a  natural  interpretation  of  the  Pauline  conception  of  Christ's  death  as 
an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  sin,  if  this  conception  is  to  be  translated  into  terms  of 
law.  Whether,  however,  such  translation  is  desirable,  is  questionable;  as  we  saw 
that  the  forensic  point  of  view  is  only  formally  and  not  materially  regulative  for 
the  Pauline  conception  of  justification.  Thus,  instead  of  seeking  to  translate 
related  conceptions  into  legal  terminology,  we  ought  rather  to  seek  such  an 
explanation  (or,  if  need  be,  modification)  of  them  as  accords  with  the  material 
element  in  St.  Paul's  idea  of  justification,  viz.,  that  it  is  entirely  the  work  of 
grace,  'apart  from  law.'  The  Protestant  theology,  in  fact,  misinterprets  Paul  by 
taking  his  legal  phraseology  as  essential,  and  seeking  to  systematize  his  whole 
view  of  justification  and  its  presuppositions  under  legal  ideas.  The  attempt  of  the 
Protestant  doctors  to  conceive  the  whole  process  of  salvation  in  legal  forms,  made 
them  introduce  into  theology  a  number  of  axioms  which  are  in  no  way  part  of  the 
Christian  view  of  the  world.  Such  an  axiom  is  that  all  sin  must  be  punished; 
whereas  the  Christian  religion  teaches  that  it  can  be  forgiven,  and  forgiveness  and 
punishment  are  mutually  exclusive  (C^I  W.  N.  C\a.Tke,.Ckfisiian  Theology, 
p.  330).  Another  axiom  is  that  the  punishment  of  sin  may  be  transferred  from 
one  person  to  another;  whereas  the  very  essence  of  the  idea  of  punishment  is  its 
connexion  with  guilt.  The  vicarious  suffering  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  is 
not  punishment.  A  third  axiom  is  that  merit  may  similiarly  be  transferred  from 
one  person  to  another;  whereas  the  moral  result  of  a  life,  which  is  what  is  meant,  is 
personal,  and  while  it  may  result  in  the  good  of  others,  cannot  be  possibly  separated 
from  the  person  of  its  author,  and  treated  as  a  commercial  asset.  That  the 
Protestant  doctors  had  to  base  their  theology  on  axioms  like  these,  plainly  shows 
that  they  were  on  the  wrong  line  in  attempting  to  translate  the  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion into  legal  terms.  We  may  no  doubt  recognize  behind  the  forms  of  the 
Protestant  theology  the  intention  to  show  that  the  Divine  grace  itself  is  the  grace 
of  a  Holy  and  a  Righteous  God.  But  the  immediate  identification  of  the  Divine 
Righteousness  with  its  expression  in  law  is  fatal  to  a  full  and  complete  view  of 
grace.  St.  Paul  might  have  taught  a  better  conception  of  law  as  a  temporary  and 
preparatory  manifestation  of  the  Divine  righteousness,  whose  end  is  fulfilled  in  a 
higher  way  by  grace  (Gal.  3:   24)."  "* 


"•  In  opposition  to  this  plausible  New  Theology  teaching,  we  might  cite  the 
words  of  Thomasius  on  the  nature  of  Justification.  He  says :  "  The  divine 
act,  in  consequence  of  which  this  transfer  to  the  sinner  occurs,  we  denominate, 
distinguishing  it  from  the  influences  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  converts  and 
sanctifies  him.  a  declaratory  act  (ariits  forrnsis)  ;  not  designing  thereby,  that 
God  in  heaven  pronounces,  in  accordance  with  human  usages,  a  judicial  sen- 
tence, but  in  the  sf^nse  of  the  earlier  teachers  of  our  church,  who  chararterize 
it  as  the  decision  of  the  divine  mind — the  determination  of  the  divine  mind  and 
will  (lestimatio  mentis  divinse,  relatio  mentis  et  voluntatis  divinae).  It  is  an 
act  of  God's  intuition,   who  sees  man   not   as   he   is  in   himself  and   in   his  sub- 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  759 

We  see  that  those  wlio  follow  Ritschl,  Kaftan,  Hiiring, 
Lipsius,  and  Clarke, — in  other  words,  the  most  progressive 
theologians  of  our  day — on  the  doctrine  of  "  a  standing  or 
falling  church "  find  the  typical  orthodox  Protestant  con- 
fession of  Justification  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  the 
article  bearing  testimony  with  reference  to  the  Osiandrian 
controversy;  and  that  they  go  back  to  the  Formula  as  the 
best  and  most  Scriptural  Confession  of  the  Protestant  or 
Evangelical  development  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  bv 
faith.  They  recognize  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  the 
highest  representative  of  the  Scriptural  teaching  of  which 
they  themselves  are  the  antithesis. 

The  difficulty  with  many  in  the  Mother  Protestant 
Church  who  dip  into  the  newer  Scotch,  British,  iRew  Eng- 
land or  German  streams  is  that  of  the  near-sighted  and 
deaf  octogenarian  who  lived  near  but  had  never  seen  Niagara 
Falls,  and  who  swore  to  and  sighed  for  the  superior  majesty 
of  a  noisy  stream  called  Roaring  Run,  amid  the  sylvan 
scenes  of  a  rich  neighbor  of  his  boyhood  days.  They  do 
not  believe  how  great  in  volume  the  Witness  of  the  For- 
mula has  shown  itself  to  be,  how  impregnable,  to  the  be- 
liever, its  positions  are,  and  how  the  strength  of  each  and 
every  doctrine  in  it  re-enforces  all  the  rest.  Twist  or  re- 
move the  one  doctrine  of  justification,  the  one  doctrine  of 
the  Person  of  Christ,  the  one  doctrine  of  the  Word,  the 
one   doctrine  of  the   Sacrament,   the   one   doctrine  even  of 


jective  condition,  but  in  connection  with  Christ,  as  indeed  one  with  Christ, 
the  holy  propitiator,  with  whom  he  has,  on  his  part,  by  means  of  faith,  united 
himself  [He  sees  and  loves  him  in  Christ,  upon  Whom  he  believes.  Com- 
pare Luther"s  declaration  :  Fides  apprehendit  Christum  et  habet  eum  presentem, 
inclusum  tenet,  ut  annulus  gemmam  ;  imo  vero  per  eam  sic  conglutinaris 
Christo,  ut  ex  te  ipso  flat  quasi  una  persona.]  ;  for  though  justification  on 
the  part  of  God,  results  from  grace  on  Christ's  account,  its  subjective  con- 
dition on  the  part  of  man  is  faith  :  and  therefore  this  objective  act  of  God 
does  not  remain  external  to  him,  but  enters  directly  to  his  conscience,  and  thus 
opens  the  way.  so  that  the  sinner  actually  perceives  within  himself  the  voice 
of  the  judging  God,  who  absolves  him  from  his  sins,  the  consciousness  of 
the  divine  favor  and  adoption  springs  up  ;  here  justification  coincides  with  the 
production  by  God  of  justifying  faith.  It  is  like  the  imputation  of  sin.  which 
is  God's  condemnation  of  the  sinner,  and  is  so  brought  home  to  the  heart  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  feels  the  pain  of  remorse  and  the  flaming  wrath  of  the 
judge,   terrores   conscientiae    (stings   of   conscience).     We   go   beyond   the    state- 


760        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the   Church,    and   you   have   thrown   all   the   others   out  of 
joint. 

The  Formula  is  our  guarantee  against  that  twist  in  Luth- 
eranism  which  j)i'evailed  during  the  reign  of  the  Melanch- 
thonian  princi])lc;  and  against  the  misarranged  and  in- 
verted relations  in  the  faith  of  many  Protestants  who  seem 
nearest  to  the  Lutheran  Church  to-day. 

A  striking  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  a  misplaced 
emphasis  on  one  point  spreads  through,  and  affects,  the  whole 
doctrinal  system  is  to  be  found  in  the  teaching  of  Caspar 
Schwenkfeldt  on  the  Lord's  Supper;  which  led  quickly  to 
the  rejection  of  the  Lutheran  doctrines  of  justification,  of 
the  Word  and  Sacrament,  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  Church, 
and  the  Office  of  the  Word  in  the  Ministry. 

Schwenkfeldt's  deviation  resembles  that  of  Osiander. 
Starting  at  the  first  impulse  to  salvation,  we  find  in 
Schwenkfeldt  the  Outer  Word,  which  is  a  mere  sign.  It 
causes  an  outer  faith ;  but  the  Iimer  Word  is  the  actual 
substantial  Christ  Himself,  which  quickens,  enlightens, 
purifies,  saves,  and  nourishes,  without  external  means.  The 
Scriptures  touch  only  the  outer  man;  and  they  profit  noth- 
ing without  the  spiritual  understanding  given  by  God  to 
the  elect. 

In  the  sacraments,  water,  bread  and  wine  are  not  a 
medium,  but  are  a  mere  outer  sign  of  that  which  is  im- 
parted by  living  inner  faith.  The  Person  of  Christ  is  not 
a  union  of  two  natures  communicating  the  idiomata  of  each 


ment  that  man  Is  justified  by  faith ;  more  accurately  to  define,  we  add,  '  by 
faith  alone'  (sola  fide).  By  this  we  exclude  from  justification  all  human 
excellence,  works,  merit,  as  effective  or  auxiliary ;  assert,  that  neither  a 
precursory  nor  a  consequent  human  love  is  the  procuring  cause :  reject  the 
scholastic  congruent  and  cooperating  merit  (meritum  de  congruo  et  condigno)  ; 
the  formate  faith  (fides  formata)  and  the  infused  justice  (justitia  infusa), 
and  place  our  trust  entirely  and  exclusively  on  the  grace  which,  purchased  for 
us  by  Christ,  is  provided  and  offered  in  the  Gospel.  For  this  very  reason  is 
this  grace- — grace  to  us  sinners, — and  therefore  accessible  and  certain,  because, 
on  the  one  hand,  independent  of  an  atonement  connected  with  our  subjectivity, 
but  positively  complete  and  satisfactory  to  God,  and,  on  the  other,  resulting 
from  no  condition  than  faith,  otherwise  it  would  be  useless.  As  it  is,  we  extend 
to  it  with  confidence  the  hand — the  poor,  empty  hand  of  faith,  and  apprehend 
with  it  the  '  gift  of  righteousness,'  which  it  offers  us  in  Christ  through  the 
word   and  the  sacraments." — £1;.  Rev.,   I,   pp.    201,    202. 


SUB  J  E  (J  T  -  M  A  T  TER.  761 

to  the  other,  but  consists  in  the  flesh  of  Christ  deified,  and 
one  with  God.  The  nnion  is  a  transformation  or  a  tran- 
substantiation  of  the  human  flesh  into  the  divine  nature. 
This  divine  flesh,  given  to  man  by  the  inner  Word  and 
the  inner  Sacraments,  is  the  inner  faith  and  brings  justi- 
fication, regeneration,  sanctification  and  glorification. 

Thus  we  find  here  a  false  unity  in  the  relation  of  the 
two  natures  of  Christ,  which  runs  from  the  Lord's  Supper, 
from  the  Person  of  Christ,  from  justification,  clear  through 
all  the  other  doctrines,  comes  to  the  surface  in  the  Word 
and  the  Sacraments,  and,  though  a  unity,  introduces  a 
dualism  of  the  inner  and  the  outer,  into  human  nature, 
into  the  Gospel,  and  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  accords 
neither  with  the  healthy  balance  of  the  Scripture,  nor  of 
the  facts  of  human  life.  One  twist  of  the  central  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ,  with  its  correlate  in  justification," 
turns  the  system  of  Schwenkfeldt  almost  as  far  from  Luth- 
eranism  as  Lutheranism  itself  is  turned  from  Rome.  It 
is  no  wonder  that  the  framers  of  the  Formula  devoted 
unusual  care  to  the  gi-eat  central  teaching  as  to  Christ 
Himself. 

Turning  to  the  next  (third)  article  of  the  Formula,  we 
find  it  reveals  the  direct  line  of  connection  between  the 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  that  of  justification 
and  faith.  Osiander  had  taught  that  Christ  is  our  right- 
eousness according  to  His  divine  nature — a  doctrine  which 
sympathizes  with  that  of  infused  righteousness ;  and  Stan- 
car  had  opposed  this,  claiming  that  we  are  justified  with 


"  "  In  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  justifloation  all  the  other  doctrines  of  the 
symbols  are  involved,  so  that  every  one  who  sincerely  believes  the  one  will 
be  compelled  to  believe  the  others,  if  he  carry  out  his  faith.  Conviction  of  this, 
on  the  part  of  any  one,  demands  subscription  to  the  entire  body  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  church,  because  they  contain,  developed,  the  faith  which  he 
entertains.  Assuredly  minor  defects  in  the  form  would  not  create  difficulty  ; 
the  less,  as  in  the  recognition  of  the  Symbols,  what  is  mere  theological  elucida- 
tion, is  not  taken  into  the  account,  but  the  '  credimus,'  '  docemus/  and  '  eon- 
fltemur.'  " — Tho^nasius,   Trans,    in   Ev.   Rev.,   I,   p.    200. 


762        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFES^JOXS. 

Christ  as  our  righteousness  according  to  his  human  nature. 
Consequently,  here  again  the  question  is  one  of  the  bear- 
ing of  the  Person  of  Christ  upon  other  doctrines;  and  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  true  to  its  true  balance  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  in  the  Person  of  Christ,  and  true  to  the 
golden  balance  of  the  whole  Lutheran  system,  has  settled 
the  matter  right  by  teaching  that  the  one,  whole,  and  per- 
fect obedience,  active  and  passive,  of  Christ,  as  God  and 
man,  is  our  righteousness ;  and  that  His  whole  obedience 
unto  death,  is  imputed  unto  us. 

Even  in  the  doctrine  of  good  works,  which  is  the  next 
subject  of  controversy  taken  up  in  the  Formula,  the  For- 
mula leads  the  disputants  from  the  bare  bones  of  the  outer 
frame  to  the  inner  grace  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  made  much  of  good  works  in  its  system 
of  salvation;  and  the  Reformation's  teaching  of  salvation 
by  faith  alone  was  arrayed  directly  against  it.  Yet,  up  to 
the  appearance  of  the  Formula,  Protestantism  had  not  yet 
finally  fixed  the  exact  status  of  the  doctrine  of  good  works, 
in  a  positive  sense;  and  in  the  course  of  time  two  teachings 
concerning  them  arose:  one,  that  good  works  are  necessary 
to  salvation;  and  the  other,  that  good  works  are  dangerous 
to  salvation,  !^[elanchthon  strove  to  solve  the  troublesome 
question  by  saying  simply,  *'  Good  works  are  necessary  " ; 
but  it  was  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  finally  settled  the 
doctrine,  by  separating  good  works  from  justification  and 
from  salvation,  yet  declaring  them  necessary  as  effects  of 
justifying  faith. 

Among  all  the  effects  of  the  Reformation  there  is  none 
so  popularly  Liudod  to-day  as  that  of  the  right  of  freedom 
of  thought,  freedom  of  conscience,  and  freedom  of  action. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  discusses  the  right  indirectly,  in 
connection  with  ceremonies,  traditions,  observances,  vows, 
etc. ;  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles  discuss  it  with  reference 
to  the  Papacy;  but  it  remained  for  the  Formula  of  (^on- 
cord  to  discuss  the  doctrine,  not  with  respect  to  Rome,  but 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  763 

with  respect  to  Protestantism  itself.  The  Augustana  gives 
us  the  doctrine  externally,  in  contrast  with  Konie.  The 
Formula  gives  us  the  doctrine  internally  in  its  relation  to 
the  Gospel  itself. 

The  Antinomian  controversies,  usually  considered  so 
effete,  were  nothing  but  the  first  cry  of  the  Protestant  mind, 
in  its  joy  for  freedom,  refusing  to  be  bound  by  any  law. 
What  could  be  more  characteristic  of  the  extreme  religious 
and  social  democracy  of  our  own  day,  and  of  all  the  indi- 
vidualistic movements  of  the  Nineteenth  and  Twentieth 
Centuries,  than  this  unwillingness  to  abide  by  the  law  and 
command  of  God  ? 

It  is  not  affirming  too  much  to  say  that  the  bulk  of  our 
modern  religious  teaching,  the  teaching  that  puts  all  stress 
on  God's  love  and  mercy;  that  directs  the  ministry  to 
preach  only  of  heaven  and  be  silent  as  to  hell ;  that  speaks 
exclusively  of  grace,  and  not  at  all  of  penalty, — is,  in 
essence,  and  at  its  best,  a  repetition  of  the  teaching  of  John 
Agricola,  of  Eisleben,  who  was  the  first  Protestant  to  de- 
clare that  the  Law  is  superseded  by  the  Gospel,  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  repentance  and  conversion;  but  works 
only  wrath  and  death,  leads  only  to  unbelief  and  despair, 
and  is  no  longer  needed  since  the  Gospel  is  sufficient  both 
to  warn  and  to  comfort. 

This  error  is  one  of  the  great  weaknesses  of  a  spineless 
and  unionistic  Twentieth-Century  Protestantism.  It  was 
most  vigorously  combatted  by  Luther  in  his  catechisms 
and  in  his  preaching.  But  the  truth  was  settled  finally 
and  confessionally  for  us  by  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
which  laid  down  a  three-fold  use  of  the  law:  first,  the 
political  or  civil  use,  to  maintain  outward  order;  second, 
the  pedagogic  use,  to  lead  men  to  a  knowledge  of  sin  and 
the  need  of  redemption;  and  third,  a  normati\'e  use,  in 
regulating  the  life  of  the  regenerate. 

The  Old  Testament  is  not  Law  alone;  and  the  J^Tew  Tes- 
tament is  both  Law  and  Gospel.     It  will  only  be  when  this 


764        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

healthy  balance  of  authority  and  love  is  universally  recog- 
nized in  our  own  age,  that  our  own  theology  and  religion, 
our  own  training  and  discipline  in  home  and  school,  our 
own  theories  of  pedagogy,  reform  and  penology,  and  our 
own  teaching  of  ethics  and  psychology,  will  return  from 
the  unhealthy  extreme  into  which,  in  the  last  generation, 
they  have  been  drifting. 

The  step  in  the  Formula  from  Law  and  Gospel,  as  given 
in  Christ,  to  love  and  life,  as  manifested  and  applied  in 
Christ — is  a  beautiful  upward  progression.  The  Gospel 
is  most  concretely  applied  in  the  sacrament  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood;  and  the  prerequisite  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood  in  the  Sacrament,  is  the  Person  of  Christ  itself.  The 
Sacrament  of  Christ  roots  itself  in  the  Person  of  Christ."' 
Thus  the  centre  of  Christ  is  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  and 
Christ  in  tlie  Sacrament  is  the  epitome,  the  summary,  the 
culmination  of  the  whole  Gospel.     Says  Jacobs : 

"  Assuming  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  and  the 
Sacramental  Union  and  Eating,  the  entire  Plan  of  Salva- 
tion and  much  that  it  presupposes  are  most  forcibly  set 
forth  in  the  Holy  Supper. 

"  The  proclamation  of  death  and  tlie  presence  of  blood 
that  has  been  shed,  preach  the  Law  as  well  as  the  Gospel, 
by  arraigning  all  who  partake  of  the  Holy  Supper,  of  a 
guilt  that  called  for  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God.  But 
with  tliis  announcement  of  guilt,  there  is  also  the  procla- 
mation of  the  remedy  which  has  been  provided.  While 
'without  the  shedding  of  blood,  there  is  no  remission' 
(Heb.  9:22),  here  we  are  assured  that  this  requirement 
has  been  met,  and  that  blood  has  actually  been  shed  for 
us;  and,  as  a  pledge  of  this,  it  is  actually  offered  to  and 
applied  to  each  communicant.  The  days  of  Old  Testa- 
ment waiting  are  over;  the  promise  has  been  fulfilled;  the 


I'-'a  '•  Their  ri-iutheran  and  Reformed]  controversies  clustered  around  this 
article  [Lord's  Supper],  as  the  Nicene  and  post-Nicene  controversies  clustered 
around  the  Person  of  Christ." — fichal'f,   CrecJ.s  uf  Christendom,  p.   216. 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  .765 

sacrifice  so  long  expected  is  actually  here.  It  is  not  the 
body  that  is  to  be  given,  bnt  that  has  been  given.  It  is 
not  the  blood  that  is  to  be  shed,  but  that  has  been  shed, 
of  which  the  cup  is  a  communion.  '.  .  Each  one,  by  himself, 
is  made  to  realize  that  redemption  has  been  provided  for 
him,  and  the  Son  of  God  belongs  individually  to  him! 
For  this  reason,  the  main  stress  rests  upon  those  very  small 
monosyllables,  '  For  you.' 

" '  All  the  good  things  that  God  the  Lord  has,  belong  to 
Christ,  and  here  become  entirely  mine.  But  that  I  may 
have  a  sign  and  assurance  that  such  inexpressibly  great 
blessings  are  mine,  I  take  to  myself  the  body  and  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ.'  '  If  I  believe  that  His  body  and  blood 
are  mine,  I  have  the  Lord  Jesus  entirely  and  completely 
and  all  that  He  can  do  is  mine,  so  that  my  heart  is  joyful 
and  full  of  courage;  for  I  am  not  left  to  my  own  piety, 
but  to  His  innocent  blood  and  pure  body  which  I  re- 
ceive' (Luther,  Walch's  ed.,  XL,  842  sq.)."" 

These  are  the  culminating  doctrines  of  conservative  evan- 
gelical Protestantism.  They  are  the  great  bulwarks  and 
preservatives  against  the  rationalism  of  Zwingli,  the  human- 
ism of  Erasmus,  and  the  shallow  work-righteousness  of 
Rome — the  Aristotelian  excess —  on  the  one  hand ;  and,  on 
the  other,  against  the  undue  mystical  immanence  of  the 
eternal  in  the  temporal — the  speculative  extreme  of  Plato, 
Photinus,  Gnosticism,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  ISTeo-Platon- 
ism,  Origen  (Augustine),  Duns  Scotus,  Bernard,  Hugo, 
Eichard  of  St.  Victor,  Bonaventura,  Albertus  ]\lagnus,  Ger- 
son,  Tauler,  Riiysbroek,  Eckhart,  Sehwenkfeldt,  Bohme,  a 
Kempis,  Fenelon,  Guyon,  Swedenborg,  Emerson,  and  the 
modern  pantheists.  To  the  Protestant  Church  the  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  in  His  Word  and  especially  in  His 
Sacrament,  as  found  in  the  Formula,  is  the  one  bulwark 
against  a  disintegrating  religious  individualism,  the  only 
one  which  Lutheran  Protestantism  possesses   (since  it  does 

"  Jacobs,   Stimviary  of  the  Christian  Faith,  pp.   356-357. 

52 


•iGG        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

not,  like  the  Reformed  Churches,  call  in  the  majesty  of 
God's  law  to  preserve  itself,  nor  the  principle  of  the  Church 
as  the  source  of  authority,  as  do  Rome  and  the  Episcopalians, 
who  thus  bind  together  minds  in  disagreement,  and  varying 
in  conscience,  in  an  outer  unity). 

The  Lutheran  bond  is  an  internal  one,  and  not  external. 
And  yet  it  is  objective.  We  are  grafted  by  Baptism  into 
the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  and  in  our  union  with  Him 
become  members  one  of  another.  In  this  union,  and  as 
full  members  of  it,  we  receive  His  real  body  to  eat  and 
His  blood  to  drink,  as  the  dying  gift  of  the  living  Christ 
to  secure  to  us  in  His  atoning  blood  the  benefits  of  remis- 
sion of  sins,  life  and  salvation.  With  His  Word  of  abso- 
lution and  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  the  circle  of  divine 
power  in  a  human  congregation  is  completed,  and  each 
soul  is  held  objectively  to  the  other  in  Christ. 

All  worship,  up  to  the  Reformation,  culminated  in  the 
Romish  mass — the  core  of  superstition  and  error,  and  the 
stronghold  of  a  priestly  order,  able,  as  the  Church,  to  offer 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 

With  the  brushing  away  of  the  mass  as  a  sacrifice,  both 
the  congregation  as  a  communion,  and  its  order  of  worship, 
would  have  lost  their  highest  centre  in  the  true  visible  Word 
had  not  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  been  held 
to  as  the  substantial  concentration  of  the  gifts  of  the  absolv- 
ing Word. 

With  the  Sacrament  removed,  the  Word  of  absolution 
could  not  have  maintained  its  place,  and  the  Word  would 
become  a  proclamation  to  the  individual,  and  the  sacra- 
ment a  commemoration  by  associative  individuals  of  an 
empty  rite,  "  or  an  act  of  faith  in  itself  almost  sacrificial.  " 

It  was  Melanchthon,  who,  trying  to  bridge  the  gap  be- 


"  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  is 
■what  gives  the  memorial   all  its  force." — Jacobs. 

"  What  Christ  could  not  do.  in  Calvin's  view,  viz.,  come  to  us  with  His 
bodily  preKence,  our  faith  could  do,  Tiz.,  come  to  Him  in  Heaven,  by  its 
spiritual  presence ! 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  767 

tween  the  two  Protestant  wings  by  a  formula  of  words, — 
the  gi-eat  mistake  of  his  life,  which  led  him  to  be  a  maker 
of  confessions,  or  rather  a  confessional  dogmatizer,  and  not 
a  confessor, — quietly  modified  the  Lutheran  teaching  of  the 
real  presence  in  the  great  Lutheran  Confession,  without  con- 
sulting any  one,  so  far  as  to  allow  the  Reformed  doctrine 
the  same  right  as  his  own  in  the  evangelical  Churches. 
He  so  changed  the  tenth  article  concerning  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, "  that  Calvin  could  give  it  his  hearty  consent,  and 
even  Zwingli — with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  word 
iruly — might  have  admitted  it."  "  He  omitted  the  clause 
on  the  real  presence,  and  the  disapproval  of  dissenting  views ; 
and  substituted  the  word  exhiheantur  for  the  word  distrihu- 
tantur. 

This  one  act  in  itself,  done  quietly  and  privately,  by  a 
prominent  individual  in  the  church,  in  a  publicly  received 
Confession,  and  in  the  very  doctrine  in  which  all  the  in- 
trinsic divine  truth  and  worship  of  the  Church  culminates, 
and  by  which  it  most  of  all  is  openly  distinguished  from  a 
legalistic  and  individualistic  Protestantism  (with  which  it 
never  will  be  able  to  combine) — this  in  itself  was  sufficient 
in  our  judgment  to  bring  on  the  years  of  Confessional  con- 
fusion that  followed;  and  to  justify  the  Testimony  of  a 
new  symbol  which  should  go  back  to  the  original  teaching 
of  the  Church — especially  if  such  symbol  set  forth  that 
teaching  in  such  simple,  succinct  and  complete  manner  as 
is  done  by  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

We  must  digress  for  a  moment.  It  will  bo  noticed  by 
our  readers  that  we  are  confining  ourselves  to  the  doctrinal 
substance  of  this  discussion. 

We  do  so  because  it  is  not  textual  criticism,  but  the 
inner  principle  of  the  truth,  which  is  decisive  in  a  matter 
such  as  this.  The  question  of  manuscripts  and  variations 
has  exactly  as  much  place,  no  more  and  no  less,  in  a  con- 


'*  Schaff,   Creeds   of  Clu-istendum,  p.   241. 


768        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

fessional  discussion  as  to  doctrine,  as  the  variations  in  the 
readings  of  the  l^ew  Testament  aftcct  the  discussion  of 
any  such  articles  of  faith  as  the  divine  nature  of  Christ, 
the  existence  of  miracles,  the  nature  of  the  Church,  etc. 
The  loss  of  originals  or  the  existence  of  variations  has  com- 
paratively little  to  do  with  our  ascertainment  of  the  doc- 
trinal content  of  the  New  Testament,  since  the  facts  are 
not  as  a  rule  seriously  affected  by  the  changes  that  came 
by  the  mutations  of  time.  But  for  a  Luke  or  a  John,  or  a 
Mark  or  a  Paul  to  have  gone  through  life  producing  new 
editions  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  and  to  have  changed 
the  style  for  the  sake  of  improvement — to  say  nothing  of 
changing  the  sense — would  have  been  greeted  with  amaze- 
ment. The  Witness  of  the  Gospel  is  too  weighty  to  be 
made  the  subject  of  change  in  matter  and  style. 

Dr.  Schaff  claims  that  Melanchthon's  later  view  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  essentially  agreed  with  that  of  Calvin,  and 
that  this  Melanchthonian-Calvinistic  view  "was  also  in 
various  ways  officially  recognized  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession of  ir)-iO."" 

The  unity  of  llelanchthon,  Bucer  and  Calvin  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  furnishes  the  Reformed  historian  Heppe " 
the  foundation  for  his  theory  that  Melanchthonianism, 
Humanism  and  Calvinism  together  composed  a  great  his- 
torical reformatory  movement,  which  was  suppressed  by 
the  narrowness  of  the  Gnesio-Lutherans.  Seeberg,  speaking 
of  the  situation  prior  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  states 
that  "  the  peculiar  characteristics  which  marked  German 
Calvinism  in  many  particulars  may  be  at  least  partly  ac- 
counted for  by  this  commingling  of  Ilumanistic-Melanch- 
thonian   and   of   Calvinistic   elements."  '* 


^'Creeds  of  Christendom,  p.  280.  Schaff  adds  that  this  edition  "was  long 
regarded  as  an  improved  rather  than  an  altered  edition  " ;  which  is  quite 
natural,  since  the  seeds  of  error  are  not  detected  in  their  young  shoots, 
but  only  very  late,   and  after  stem  and  leaf  have  grown   up. 

"  Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Protestant isiitus,  1855-81,  4  vols. 

"II,   p.   381. 


SUBJECT-MATTER.  769 

At  all  events,  it  is  certain  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  the  application  of  the  mystery  of  the  Cross,  is 
the  one  central  and  concentrated  test  of  the  whole  tree  of 
living  Faith  that  lies  behind  it.  The  great  sensuous 
Roman  system  comes  to  flower  in  the  gorgeous  and  glitter- 
ing sacrifice  of  the  mass;  the  subtle  but  discerning  spiritual 
system  of  Calvin,  a  divine  truth  in  human  dialectic, 
unfolds  the  Supper  into  an  ethereal  fruit  plucked  by  ven- 
turesome faith;  the  rationalism  of  Zwingli  offers  in  the 
Supper  an  empty  and  withered  blossom — ashes  of  roses; 
while  the  believing  faith  of  Lutheranism  finds  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  an  applied  epitome  of  all  redemption,  the  real  and 
very  fruit  of  the  Cross  of  Christ — the  body  and  blood  given 
and  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  working  deliverance,  and 
bringing  life  and  salvation. 
49 


CHAPTER   XXXIII. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  PERSON  OF   CHRIST  AND  THE  FORMULA 
OF  CONCORD. 

The  Person  of  Christ  the  Centre — Consequences  in  Lutheran  Theology — "  Person 
of  Christ "  in  the  Formula — Not  a  New  Doctrine  to  Bolster  up  the  Real  Pres- 
ence— The  Divergence  on  this  Doctrine  between  the  Two  Branches  of  Protes- 
tantism— It  is  rooted  in  Luther — Luther  on  the  Person  of  Christ — Whence  Lu- 
ther Derived  this  Doctrine — Luther's  Rescue  of  the  Sacrament — The  Communi- 
catio  Idiomatum  vs.  The  Zwinglian  Alloesis — Misrepresentation  of  the  Lutheran 
Faith — The  Personal  Omnipresence  a  Fundamental  Fact — The  Most  Potent 
Objection — The  Critique  of  Schaff — Inconsistency  of  critics  of  the  "Ubiquity" 
— The  Scriptural  Origin  of  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum — The  Ancient  Creeds 
— The  Church  Fathers — I'he  Formula  and  the  living  Christ. 

PEKSON  OF  CHRIST  CENTRAL  IN  SCRIPTURE  AND  IN  LUTHERAN 
PROTESTANTISM. 

THE  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  deeply  rooted  in  the 
Person  of  Christ.  The  Person  of  Christ  is  the  mystery 
of  Christianity  and  the  ages.  To-day,  yesterday,  forever,  it  is 
fnndanicntaL  Christ  is  all  and  in  all.  The  theology  of  every 
age  is  conditioned  by  its  lighter,  or  its  more  vital,  grasp  of 
this  doctrine.  No  Biblical  theme  has  had  snch  a  hold  on  our 
own  time,  except  the  critical  investigation  of  the  Scriptures, 
as  this  central  one  of  the  personality  of  Christ.'     The  old 


^Fairbairn,  Christ  in  Modern  Theologii ;  Noesgen,  Chrlstus  der  Menschen 
und  Gottssohn,  (1869)  :  Grau,  Das  ScJbsthrwusstsrin  Jesu  (1887)  ;  Bruce. 
Humiliation  of  Christ  (1889)  ;  Wendt,  Die  Lehrc  Jesus  (1890)  ;  Baldensperger. 
Das    Selbstbeivusstscin   Jcau    (1892)  ;    Gore,    Dissertations    on   the   hicarnatxon 


V  i 


0 


THE   PERSON    OF   OH  R I  ST.  771 

problems  as  to  the  knowledge,  presence  and  power  of  the 
Son  of  God,  in  relation  to  the  limitations,  growth  and  un- 
folding of  the  Son  of  Man;  the  psychological  inquiry  into 
the  mind  and  the  consciousness  of  Christ,  the  questions  as 
to  the  Kenosis,  have  been  pursued  with  tireless  zeal  for  a 
whole  generation. 

The  Lutheran  Reformation  began  with  the  confession  of 
justification  by  faith,  but  the  leaven  at  once  worked  down 
deeper  to  the  living  ground  of  our  justification,  which  is 
Christ.  Christ  is  the  centre  of  the  Word  of  God,'  and  the 
centre  of  Lutheran  theology,  as  Luther  has  built  it  into  the 
explanation  of  the  Second  Article  of  the  Creed. 

This  centre,  the  Person  of  Christ,  was  the  most  practical 
and  vital  part — next  to  justification — of  Luther's  Faith. 
For  it  was  not  the  philosophy  of  the  incarnation  as  such, 
not  the  speculative  mystery  of  the  union  of  the  natures,  in 
which  he  was  interested.  His  interest  lay  in  the  mystery  of 
the  active  Person.  He  saw  salvation  wrought  out  for  him- 
self in  the  life,  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Divine  Person, 
and  he  emphasized  these  personal  saving  acts,  rather  than  the 
passive  condition  of  the  natures. 

From  our  jiresent  point  of  view,  Luther's  great  work  in 
theology  was  his  re-discovery  of  the  living  Christ.  Instead 
of  metaphysical  analyses  of  God  and  definitions  of  the  qual- 
ities of  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  which  was  an  intellectual 
process  of  the  mind,  and  never  touched  Christ's  saving  work, 
Luther  made  the  Person  of  Christ  a  part  of  the  blessed  per- 
sonal experience  of  justification  by  faith.     Only  those  who 

(1895),  pp.  71-202;  Lietzmann,  Der  Menschensohn  (1896)  ;  Powell,  Principle 
of  the  Incariiatio7i  (1896)  ;  Mason,  Conditions  of  our  Lord's  Life  on  Earth' 
(1896)  ;  Gifford,  The  Incarnation  (1897)  ;  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ;  Ottley, 
Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  Vol.  II.  Edwards,  The  God-Man.  Bruce's  several 
works;  Beyschlag,  Die  Christologie  des  Neuen  Testaments;  Forrest,  The 
Christ  of  History  and  Experience  (1897)  ;  Adamson,  The  Mind  in  Christ 
(1898)  ;  Stalker,  The  Christology  of  Jesus  (1899).  Cp.  the  writing.s  of 
Schmiedel  ;  Bossuet  (Jesus);  Arno  Neumann  iJcsus).  of  the  critico-physcho- 
logico-rationalistie  school ;  Das  Gottliche  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  Nach  Dem 
Zeufinis  Der  Synoptiker.  Job.  Steinbeck.  1908.  A  Schweitzer,  Von  Reimarus 
zu   Wrede.   Eine   Gcschiehte   der  Lehen-Jesu-Forschung,   Strasburg,   1906. 

=   •Tie    ch>f      -ti   Ip    is  this,     that    Je^^iis    Christ,    our    God    and    Lord    died    f-^r 
our    tins,    and    v  as    raised    again    for    our   justification." — Schmalkald    Articles. 


772        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

know  we  are  not  saved  by  our  own  person  and  character, 
but  by  the  work  of  Christ,  can  truly  appreciate  the  Person 
of  Christ.  When  we  know  God  is  working  for  us,  we  cease 
trying  to  work  for  ourselves/  Therefore  the  Person  of 
Christ  is  something  more  than  a  doctrine,  for  the  true 
Christian.  It  is  a  part  of  ourselves,  which  we  carry  about 
with  us  in  our  life. 

"  To  know  Jesus  in  the  true  way  means  to  know  that  He 
died  for  us,  that  He  piled  our  sins  upon  Himself,  so  that 
we  hold  all  our  own  affairs  as  nothing,  and  let  them  all 
go  and  cling  only  to  the  faith  that  Christ  has  given  Himself 
for  us,  and  that  His  sufferings  and  piety  and  virtues  are 
all  mine.  When  I  know  this,  I  must  hold  Him  dear  in  re- 
turn, for  I  cannot  help  loving  such  a  man." 

In  this  insight  of  Luther,  we  touch  the  kernel  of  the  Re- 
formation Confession  as  to  Christ  Jesus,  "  the  master-truth 
which  distinguishes  its  theology  from  all  previous  teaching 
about  God  and  the  Person  of  Christ."  *  "  The  older  theology 
had  never  grasped  the  thought  that  Jesus  Christ  filled  the 
whole  sphere  of  God.  It  limited  the  work  of  Christ  to  the 
procuring  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  left  room  outside  of 
Christ  for  many  operations  of  Divine  grace  which  were  sup- 
posed to  begin  when  the  work  of  forgiveness  was  ended.  So 
there  grew  up  the  complex  system  of  expiations  and  satis- 
factions, of  magical  sacraments  and  saints'  intercessions, 
which  made  the  mediaeval  Christian  life  so  full  of  super- 
stitions, and,  to  all  seeming,  so  empty  of  Christ." 

To  Luther — and  this  is  the  keynote  of  Lutheran  Protest- 
antism, as  distinguished  from  Calvinism,  Zwinglianism,  and 
all  other  Protestantism — there  was  room  for  no  other  vision 
of  God  than  that  which  Christ  gives  us.  This  cut  away  the 
pagan  threads  that  had  continued  to  form  the  web  of  scho- 


"Eilangen   12.    244. 

*  Lindfsay  on  Luther's  Belief  in  the  Person  of  Christ. 

'' Cp.  Th.  Harnack,  Luther's  Thcolojie. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  773 

lastic  theology,  and  suggested  the  great  vatalization  and 
simpliiication  of  Christian  dogma. 

"  '  Luther/  as  Harnack  says,  '  in  liis  relation  to  God,  only 
thought  of  God  at  all  as  he  knew  Him  in  Christ.'  Beyond, 
there  is  the  unknown  God  of  philosophical  paganism,  the 
God  whom  Jews,  Turks  and  pagans  ignorantly  worship.  Xo 
one  can  really  know  God  save  through  the  Christ  of  history. 
Hence,  in  Luther,  Christ  fills  the  whole  sphere  of  God :  '  He 
that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father ',  and  conversely, 
*  He  that  hath  not  seen  me  hath  not  seen  the  Father.'  The 
historical  Jesus  Christ  is  the  revealer,  and  the  only  revealer 
of  the  Father,  for  Luther.  The  revelation  is  given  in  the 
marvellous  experience  of  faith  in  which  Jesus  compels  us 
to  see  God  in  Him — the  whole  of  God,  Who  has  kept  back 
nothing  which  He  could  have  given  us. 

"  There  is  only  one  article  and  rnle  in  theology.  He  who 
has  not  a  full  and  clear  grasp  of  it  is  no  theologian ;  namely, 
true  faith  and  trust  in  Christ.  Into  this  article  all  the  others 
flow,  and  without  this  they  are  nothing."'  "  In  my  heart 
there  rules  alone,  and  shall  rule,  this  one  article,  namely, 
faith  on  my  dear  Lord  Christ,  which  is,  of  all  my  thoughts  on 
things  spiritual  and  Divine,  the  only  beginning,  middle  and 
end."  ' 

CONSEQUENCES    OF   THIS    DOCTEINE   IN    LUTHERAN    THEOLOGY. 

This  mighty  Lutheran  Confession  of  the  Person  of  Christ 
brought  about  certain  important  changes  in  Christian  doc- 
trine, principally  in  Lutheran  theology ;  but  also  to  a  less 
extent  in  Reformed  theology  in  so  far  as  it  was  dependent 
on  Luther.  The  first  of  these  important  consequences  was 
that  the  Person  of  Christ  itself  was  endowed  with  a  richer 
and  fuller  Scriptural  meaning  than  had  ever  been  the  case 
in  the  earlier  history  of  the  Church.     That  Christ  was  God, 


^  Erh,   18.   398. 
■>  Ih.,  58.  63. 


774        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

in  all  His  acts,  brought  God  ou  very  close  and  intimate  terms 
with  every  Christian;  and  that  Christ  was  man,  made  God 
very  real,  very  concrete,  very  historical  and  very  effective  to 
every  believer.  Before  Luther,  the  relation  of  the  Two 
Natures  had  been  so  put  as  to  convey  the  impression  that 
the  only  use  and  part  of  the  divine  nature  in  the  Person  was 
to  reinforce  and  establish  the  work  of  the  human  nature. 
Even  Augustine  and  Anselm  expressed  the  matter  thus,  and 
the  Reformed  theology  of  the  Reformation  repeats  it.  But 
Luther  was  unwilling  to  thus  crowd  the  divine  nature  into 
a  corner.  He  constantly  cautions  us  against  supposing  that 
the  "  Two  Natures  "  are  joined  so  mechanically  that  we  can 
consider  the  one  apart  from  the  other. 

"  This  is  the  first  principle  and  most  excellent  article,  how 
Christ  is  the  Father:  that  we  are  not  to  doubt  that  whatso- 
ever the  man  says  and  does  is  reckoned,  and  must  be  reckoned, 
as  said  and  done  in  heaven  for  all  angels ;  and  in  the  world 
for  all  rulers ;  in  hell  for  all  devils ;  in  the  heart  for  every 
evil  conscience  and  all  secret  thoughts.  For  if  we  are  certain 
of  this:  that  when  Jesus  thinks,  speaks,  wills,  the  Father 
also  wills,  then  I  defy  all  that  may  fight  against  me.  For 
here  in  Christ  have  I  the  Father's  heart  and  will."  * 

The  second  of  the  consequences  of  the  new  Reformation 
doctrine  was  that  Luther  restored  human  reality  to  the  Per- 
son of  Christ.  In  emphasizing  the  powerful  and  complete 
Divinity,  Luther  was  the  last  one  to  sacrifice  Christ's  hu- 
manity. He  tells  us  that  the  reason  why  the  Scholastics 
went  so  far  astray  and  dealt  so  artificially  with  Christ  was 
because  they  had  either  dro]5ped  the  humanity  entirely,  or 
had  overlaid  and  obscured  it  by  reasonings  and  imaginations 
not  found  in  the  Scripture. 

"  '  The  deeper  we  can  bring  Christ  into  our  humanity,  the 
better  it  is,' "  he  says  in  one  of  his  sermons.  So  his  frequent 
pictures  of  the  boyhood  of  Jesus  are  full  of  touches  from 


»  Erl,  49.   183,   184. 
•  7b.,  6.  155. 


TEE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  775 

the  family  life  of  the  lionie  at  Wittenberg.  The  boy  Jesus 
lived  just  like  other  boys,  was  protected,  like  them,  by  the  dear 
angels,  was  suckled  at  His  mother's  breast,  learned  to  walk, 
ate  and  drank  like  other  children,  was  subject  to  his  parents, 
ran  errands  for  His  mother,  brought  her  water  from  the 
well,  and  firewood  from  the  heap  in  the  yard,  and  finally, 
when  He  grew  up  and  became  stronger,  began  to  ply  the 
axe  to  help  His  father  (passim)."  And  this,  Luther  as- 
serted against  those  who  had  erected  it  into  an  article  of 
faith  that  Christ  from  the  first  moment  of  His  life  was  so 
full  of  wisdom  that  there  was  nothing  left  for  Him  to  loarn. 
He  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  who  ascribe  to  Christ 
only  a  mutilated  humanity.  "  By  humanity  I  mean  body  and 
soul.  And  this  I  wish  to  emphasize  because  some,  like 
Photinus  and  Apollinaris,  have  taught  that  Christ  was  a  man 
without  a  human  soul,  and  that  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  Him 
in  place  of  the  soul." 

*'  It  is,"  he  says  in  his  exposition  of  John  1  :l-i,  "  the  most 
precious  treasure  and  highest  comfort  that  we  Christians 
have,  that  the  Word,  the  true  natural  Son  of  God,  became 
man,  having  flesh  and  blood,  like  any  other  man,  and  became 
man  for  our  sakes,  that  we  might  come  to  the  great  glory: 
that  thereby  our  flesh  and  blood,  skin  and  hair,  hands  and 
feet,  belly  and  back,  sit  in  heaven  above,  equal  to  God,  so 
that  we  can  boldly  bid  defiance  to  the  devil  and  all  else  that 
harasses  us.  We  are  thus  made  certain,  too,  that  they  belong 
to  heaven  and  are  heirs  of  the  heavenly  Kingdom."  " 

"  It  was  no  mere  semblance  of  a  man  who  was  now  exalted 
at  the  Father's  right  hand,  but  one  who  was  bone  of  our 
bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  to  whom  no  human  experience, 
save  sin,  was  foreign, — a  boy  who  enjoyed  his  play  and 
helped  in  little  household  duties,  a  man  who  shared  the 
common  lot  of  toil  and  weariness  and  temptation,  a  real 
man  living  a  true  human  life  under  conditions  not  so  far 

^"Ib.,    4G.    12    sq. 


776        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

removed  from  our  own.  Having  life — a  true  human  life — 
He  understands  us  fully,  and  we  can  know  Him,  and  God 
through  Him.  Through  Him  alone  can  we  come  to  know 
God.  '  Outside  of  this  Christ  no  other  will  of  God  is  to  be 
sought.  .  .  .  Those  wdio  speculate  about  God  and  His  will 
without  Christ,  lose  God  completely.' "  " 

The  third  of  the  consequences  of  Luther's  Christology  was 
that,  while  it  accepted,  it  also  put  the  life  of  Scriptural 
reality,  into  the  old  Church  doctrine.  Luther  ever  insisted 
that  he  accepted  only  the  ancient  Church  doctrine  on  the 
Person  of  Christ. 

"  '  No  one  can  den}^',  he  says,  '  that  we  hold,  believe,  sing, 
and  confess  all  things  in  correspondence  with  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  that  we  make  nothing  new  therein,  nor  add  anything 
thereto,  and  in  this  way  we  belong  to  the  old  Church,  and 
are  one  with  it.'  Tlie  Schmalkald  Articles  and  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  begin  with  stating  over  again  the  doctrines 
of  the  Old  Catholic  Church,  founding  on  the  Xicene  Creed, 
and  quoting  Ambrose  and  Augustine;  and  Luther's  conten- 
tion always  was  that,  if  the  sophistry  of  the  Schoolmen  could 
be  cleared  away,  the  old  doctrines  of  the  ancient  Church 
would  stand  forth  in  their  original  purity.  When  he  spoke 
of  the  Scholastic  Theology  as  sophistry,  he  attached  a  definite 
meaning  to  the  word.  He  meant  not  merely  that  the  School- 
men played  with  the  outsides  of  doctrines,  and  asked  and 
solved  innumerable  trivial  questions;  but  also  that  the  im- 
posing edifice  they  erected  was  hollow  within,  and  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
He  maintained  that  in  the  heart  of  the  system  there  was, 
instead  of  the  God  whom  Jesus  had  revealed,  the  abstract 
entity  of  pagan  philosophy,  an  unknown  deity — for  God 
could  never  be  revealed  by  metaphysics.  All  this  sophistry 
he  swept  away,  and  tlien  declared  that  he  stood  on  the 
ground  occupied  by  the  theologians  of  the  ancient  Church, 


"  Wahh,   V,    198. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  777 

whose  faith  was  rooted  in  the  triune  God,  and  in  belief  in 
Jesus  Christ  the  Revealer  of  God.  .  .  . 

"  Luther  believed,  and  rightly  believed,  that  for  the 
Fathers  of  the  ancient  Church,  the  theological  doctrines  in 
which  they  expressed  their  conceptions  about  God  and  the 
Person  of  Christ  were  no  dead  formulas,  but  were  the  ex- 
pressions of  a  living  Christian  experience.  Luther  took  the 
old  dogmas,  and  made  them  live  again  in  an  age  in  which 
it  seemed  as  if  they  had  lost  all  their  vitality  and  had 
degenerated  into  mere  dead  doctrines  on  which  the  intellect 
could  sharpen  itself,  but  which  were  out  of  all  relation  to 
the  practical  religious  life  of  men.  The  Summa  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  gives  little  insight  into  the  deep  and  genuine  re- 
ligious experience  of  the  writer,  and  gets  no  inspiration  there. 
The  efforts  of  the  schoolmen  were  directed  solely  to  the  ex- 
position of  the  philosophical  implications  of  traditional 
doctrines ;  they  ignored  the  relation  to  actual  religious  life 
in  the  Church,  apart  from  which  theology  becomes  unreal. 
.  .  .  Through  Luther  came  the  discovery  that  there  was 
theological  material  in  the  living  experience  of  Christian 
souls."  " 

This  objective  reality  of  justification  through  Christ,  of 
faith  in  Christ,  of  Christ's  sacraments,  of  Christ's  Church, 
lifts  the  Lutheran  Faith  alike  above  the  dead  principle 
adorned  with  sensuous  imagery  of  Rome ;  and  the  subjective 
idea,  and  opinion,  the  vague  thought,  or  natural  truth  or 
mere  sentiment  of  a  common  Protestantism.  The  Sacrament 
of  Luther,  for  instance,  is  not  a  metaphysical  miracle,  nor 
a  sentimental  memorial,  but  a  mighty   and  living  reality. 

The  fourth  characteristic  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  was  that  it  was  incorporated  .into  theology  in 
a  plain,  practical  and  edifying  exposition. 

"  If  Luther  accepted  the  old  formulas  describing  the  na- 
ture  of  God   and   the   Person   of   Christ,    he    did   so   in   a 


"  Lindsay  on  Luther's   Belief  in   the  Person  of  Christ. 


778        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

thoroughly  characteristic  way.  He  desired  to  state  them  in 
plain  German,  so  that  they  could  appeal  to  the  '  common 
man.'  He  did  not  believe  that  theology,  the  most  practical  of 
all  disciplines,  was  a  secret  science  for  experts.  He  con- 
fessed with  some  impatience  that  technical  theological  terms 
were  sometimes  necessary,  but  he  did  not  like  them,  and  he 
used  them  as  little  as  possible."  ^  He  reached  the  Person  of 
Christ  from  below,  from  the  redemption  of  the  Cross,  and  not 
from  any  speculative  heights  above.  He  does  not  reason 
from  "  what  Godhead  must  be,  and  what  manliood  must  be," 
to  "  how  Godhead  and  manhood  can  be  united."  "  He  rises 
from  the  office  to  the  Person,  and  does  not  descend  from  the 
Person  to  the  offiice.  '  Christ  is  not  called  Christ  because  He 
has  two  natures.  What  does  that  matter  to  me  ?  He  bears 
this  glorious  and  comforting  name  because  of  His  office  and 
work  which  he  has  undertaken.' " 

The  fifth,  and  in  numy  respects,  the  most  important  change 
brought  about  by  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ 
was  the  restoration  to  its  original  Scriptural  intent  and 
glory,  without  let  or  weakening,  howsoever,  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


THE  PERSON  OF   CHRIST  IN   THE   FORMULA. 

The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  tlie  Person  of  Christ  we  find 
especially  in  Luther's  Catechisms,  as  the  necessary  cul- 
mination of  the  doctrine  of  the  ]iersonal  union  of  God  and 
man  in  Christ.     The  Third  Article  of  the  Augustana  pene- 


"  iErl.  1st.  36.  506).  Like  Athanasius,  he  preferred  the  word  ovrness  to 
express  the  relation  between  the  Persons  in  the  Trinity.  He  even  disliked  the 
term  Trinity  or  its  German  equivalents  Drcifaltif/keit,  Dreihcit.  '  Dreifaltig- 
keit  ist  ein  recht  hose  Deutsch,  denn  in  der  Gottheit  ist  die  hochste  Einigkeit. 
Etliche  nennen  es  Dreiheit ;  aber  das  lautet  allzuspottisch.  .  .  .  darum 
lautet  es  auch  kalt,  und  viel  besser  sprach  man  Gott  denn  die  Dreifaltigkeit. 
(2  Erl.  6.  358).  He  called  the  technical  terms  used  in  the  old  creeds 
vocabula  viathematica,  and  did  not  use  any  of  them  in  his  Small  or  Large 
Catechisms. 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  779 

trates  little  further  than  the  Catechism,  being  only  a  slight 
amplification  of  the  clauses  in  the  Second  Article  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  for  the  call  had  not  yet  come,  and  the  time 
was  not  yet  ripe  for  a  fuller  confessional  unfolding  of  this 
inner  mystery.  But  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  driven 
to  the  innermost  heart  of  the  Faith,  and  deep  below  the  com- 
plicated questions  of  the  day,  found  it  beating  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ.  This  great  Confession's  most  il- 
lustrious service  is  its  attempt  in  twelve  statements  to  con- 
fess "  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church  concern- 
ing the  Person  of  Christ."  Its  wonderful  success  in  open- 
ing the  full  Word  of  God  to  our  eye  as  to  this  mystery  of 
the  ages,  is  a  marvel. 

The  Formula  teaches  the  unity  of  the  personality,  the 
integrity  of  the  natures,  the  true  divinity  of  the  divine,  and 
the  true  humanity  of  the  human  nature,  the  personal  union 
and  consequent  communion ;  the  fact  that  God  thus  is  man, 
and  man  tlms  is  God;  the  virgin  birth;  the  death  and  resur- 
rection and  ascension  of  Christ,  not  as  mere  man,  but  as  the 
Son  of  God ;  the  suffering  of  the  Son  of  God  as  our  high 
priest;  the  exaltation  of  the  Son  of  man  at  the  right  hand 
of  God ;  the  possession  of  divine  majesty  in  the  flesh,  but 
the  abstinence  from  it ;  the  substantial,  yet  not  earthly  or 
Capernaitic,  impartation  of  His  true  body  and  blood  in  the 
Holy  Supper;  the  person  of  Christ  not  divided,  as  it  was 
by  ISTestorius ;  nor  the  natures  commingled,  as  was  taught 
by  Eutyches;  "but  Christ  is  and  remains,  for  all  eternity, 
God  and  man  in  one  undivided  person,  which,  next  to  the 
Holy  Trinity,  is  the  liighest  mystery,  as  the  Apostle  testifies 
(I  Tim.  3:16),  upon  which  our  only  consolation,  life  and 
salvation  depend." 

As  a  guide  to  contemporary  religious  discussion  on  the 
great  topics  of  Christianity,  and  especially  on  problems  con- 
nected with  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  Epitome  of  the 
Formula  will,  we  are  confident,  prove  more  interesting,  and 
its  use  of  Scripture  and  of  the  pure  Gospel  will  be  as  edi- 


780        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

fying,  to  a  student  and  la^anan,  as  is  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. The  clearness,  calmness,  simplicity,  and  weight  of 
the  matter,  without  repetition  of  platitudes,  fit  it  for  con- 
vincing modern  use;  and  we  trust  that  the  day  will  come 
when  it  will  be  published  as  a  tract  or  pamplilet  to  be 
placed  in  every  Lutheran  household. 

The  great  stumbling  block  in  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
to  Koman  Catholic  "  and  Reformed  "  writers  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century,  is  the  introduction  of  the  new  doctrine  (thus  the 
objectors  put  it),  of  the  ubiquity  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
With  the  philosophical  doctrine  of  "  the  Ubiquity  "  as  such, 
we  have  as  little  sympathy  as  these  critics.  The  basing  of  the 
truth  of  the  Word  upon  a  ])hilosophical  form  is  foreign  to 
the  Scriptural  and  the  Lutheran  Confession.  It  is  not  "  the 
Ubiquity,"  but  the  doctrine  which  is  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
ture as  a  divine  fact,  and  which  is  applicable  as  a  divinely 
revealed  fact  to  Christ  in  all  His  relations,  that  is  taught 
most  clearly  in  Luther  and  in  the  Formula,  and  is  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  Lutheran  Confession. 

We  do  not  find  this  teaching  scholastic,  speculative,  ab- 
stract, or  fine-spun,  as  some  writers  on  the  Confessions  in- 
timate ;  but  to  us  the  article  is  filled  with  the  marrow  of  the 
Word,  more  than  shares  in  perspicuity,  and  altogether  out- 
rivals in  edification  the  current  ephemeral  discussions 
which  seek  to  illumine  the  Person  of  our  glorious  Redeemer 
with  critical  clear  lights, or  to  flash  human  and  psychological  " 


"  Bellarmini,  Judicium  de  libra  quern  Lutherani  vacant  Concordiae. 

^^  Cp.  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  on  the  "Formula."  Also  Lindsay,  as 
given  below. 

''£.  g.,  "The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Atonement  as  Influenced  by  Semitic 
Religious  Ideas,"  by  Reginald  Campbell  ;  "  The  Gospel  of  Krishna  and  0/ 
Christ,"  and  "The  Messianic  Idea  in  Vergil."  by  R.  S.  Conway;  "The  Divine 
Immanence  and  the  Christian  Purpose,"  by  A.  C.   McGlffert. 

"  The  philosophical  motive  usually  attributed  to  this  doctrine's  presenta- 
tion in  the  Formula  is  not  there  except  subordinately  :  the  Formula  seeks  to 
set  forth  only  what  the  Scripture  teaches.  The  philosophical  method  of  those 
who  complain  of  the  philosophy  of  the  Formula  brings  a  philosophy  of  its 
own,  whether  mediaeval  or  modern,  to  the  Scripture,  and  construes  the  Scrip- 
ture by  it. 


THE   PERISON    OF   CHRIST.  781 

liigli  liiilits  upon  it  from  outside  the  Scripture.  N^o  Con- 
fession of  the  Church  of  Christ,  no  private  investigation  or 
essay,  whether  by  the  Fathers,  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Chem- 
nitz,— shall  we  come  down  to  modern  speculation — to  Renan, 
Strauss,  Dorner,  Salmoud,  Schmiedel  ? — gives  so  clear  a 
Scriptural  insight  into  the  Person  of  Christ  in  so  few  words. 


NOT  A  NEW  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FORMULA. 

And  this  doctrine  of  the  Formula  is  not  new.  It  is  not  a 
scholastic  subtlety  drawn  upon  in  the  Lutheran  Church  by 
post-Reformation  theologians  in  order  to  bolster  up  an  anti- 
Melanchthonian  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  It  is  not 
an  extreme  development  deduced  by  later  dogmatists  from 
the  earlier  Lutheran  teaching.  It  is  not  a  new  teaching,  but 
the  old  faith  of  Martin  Luther  himself. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  Formula's  doctrine  of  Christ's  Per- 
son was  first  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The 
Formula  itself  emphasizes  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Martin 
Luther.  It  is  the  doctrine  which  Melanchthon  had  in  mind 
and  followed  when  he  wrote  the  Augsburg  Confession;  it  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Large  Catechism  and  the  Schmalkald 
Articles.  Xay,  it  is  the  great  central  and  fundamental  doc- 
trine on  the  Person  of  Christ,  which  separated  Zivingli  from 
Luther,  fifty  years  before  the  Formula  was  written,  and 
which  still  separates  the  Lutheran  Church  from  the  Re- 
formed. Instead  of  fixing  the  blame  upon  the  Formula  of 
Concord  for  introducing  an  abstract  philosophical  teaching, 
in  order  to  bolster  up  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  was  done  from  the  start  by  the  enemies  of  the  Lutheran 


"  "  The  truth  is,  that  when  we  admit  the  personal  union  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  with  a  divine  nature,  we  ha\-e  already  admitted  the  fact, 
in  which  the  mystery  of  Christ's  Sacramental  presence  is  absorbed.  The 
whole  Divine  person  of  Christ  is  confessedly  present  at  the  Supper,  but  the 
human  nature  has  been  taken  into  that  personality,  and  forms  one  person  with 
it  ;  hence  the  one  person  of  Christ,  consisting  of  the  two  natures,  is  present, 
and  of  necessity  the  two  natures  which  constitute  it  are  present." — Con.  Ref., 
p.  469. 
53 


782         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Churcli,  a  study  of  the  facts  will  show  that  this  doctrine  goes 
hack  to  the  fountain  head  of  the  Reformation,  and  divides 
the  streams  there;  that  Luther  taught  positively  all  that  is 
taught  by  the  Formula,  not  chiefly  in  order  to  support  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 

The  historical  situation  will  show  that  the  real  difference 
between  Reformed  and  Lutheran  theology  lies  in  the  depth 
of  the  Lutheran  conception  of  the, reality  of  the  Person  of 
Christ."  It  will  reveal  that  this  is  a  difference  which  sep- 
arated Luther  from  Zwingli  at  Marburg,  separated  Melanch- 
thon  from  Zwingli  at  Augsburg,  and  would  have  continued 
to  separate  Bucerism  and  Calvinism  from  Lutheranism  for- 
ever, if  Bucer  had  not  made  his  great,  but  not  thoroughly 
open  and  honest  attempt'"  to  unite  the  two  churches,  to 
which,  not  then,  but  in  later  days,  the  words  and  deeds  of 
Melanchthon  lent  countenance. 

To  Calvin,  to  Bucer,  to  Zwingli,  the  Person  of  Christ, 
whether  in  Scripture  or  in  the  Sacrament,  was  a  truth  to  be 
apprehended  and  worked  into  our  consciousness  by  a  be- 
lieving faith ;  but  to  Luther  and  to  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
the  Person  of  Christ,  whether  in  Scripture  or  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, is  a  fact,  is  the  great  reality  of  salvation,  which,  as  a 
fact,  and  not  as  a  mere  spiritual  truth,  works  itself  and  its 
effect  upon  and  into  us  without  the  mediative  and  inter- 


^'  "  In  regard  to  the  presence  of  Christ,  our  dispute  is  not  as  to  hoxo  He  is 
present,  which,  like  the  whole  doctrine  of  His  person,  is  an  inscrutable  mys- 
tery, but  as  to  whether  there  be  a  true,  not  an  ideal  presence.  It  is  the 
essence  of  the  doctrine,  not  its  form,  which  divides  us  from  the  Reformed." — 
Con.  Ref.,  p.  458. 

^'Loscher,  Ausfiihrliche  Historia  Motuum,  I.  219,  according  to  Jacobs, 
Book  of  Concord,  II,  254,  "  gives  proof  of  Bucer's  sincerity,  citing  frank  ac- 
knowledgments of  his  former  error  made  to  others  than  Lutherans  ;"  and  at 
the  conference  of  theologians  at  Schmalkald  in  1537,  according  to  Melanchthon, 
C.  R.,  Ill,  p.  292,  "  Bucer  satisfied  us  all,  even  the  more  rigid."  "  Neverthe- 
less,"' continues  Jacobs,  "  at  Gotha,  where  Bucer  overtook  Luther  on  his 
premature  departure  from  Schmalkald,  Luther  arraigned  him  very  plainly  for 
the  inconsistencies  in  which  he  was  involved  by  his  attempts  to  mediate  {Erl. 
65.  92)  ;"  "  nor  have  we  found  any  evidence  of  retraction  of  the  interpreta- 
tion of  '•  the  unworthy  '  as  given  in  his  '  Explanation,'  "  For  the  "  Explana- 
tion "  see  flhe  Book  of  Concord,  II,  pp.  259  and  260. 


TEE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  TSS 

pretative  grasp  of  our  mental  processes.  ISTot  a  logical  con- 
cept, "  the  ubiquity,"  but  a  living  fact  divides  the  Reformed 
Church  from  the  Lutheran.  It  is  the  fact  of  the  Person  of 
Christ.  In  Rome,  the  Church  reproduces  a  mechanical 
reality  as  the  Christ;  in  radical  Protestantism,  the  human 
mind  and  memory  grasp  after  a  spiritual  reality;  but  in 
Luther  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  actual  and  historical 
Personality  of  Christ,  with  its  full  mystery  of  strength, 
grasps  and  saves  the  human  sinner  in  the  contact  of  Word 
and  Sacrament. 


THE  DIVERGENCE  BETWEEN  THE  TWO  BRANCHES  OF  PROTEST- 
ANTISM. 

It  is  an  act  of  injustice,  oft  repeated,  to  claim  that  the 
sharp  division  between  tlie  two  evangelical  Protestant  re- 
formatory movements  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  was  sprung 
by  the  Formula  of  Concord.  "  The  root  of  the  divergence 
lies  in  the  very  nature  of  Christianity;  and  there  can  be  no 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  differences  between  the  Zwinglio- 
Calvinistic,  and  the  Lutheran  Reformation,  and  the  Churches 
which  were  respectively  established  upon  them,  except  this, 
that  the  one  accepted  the  truth,  the  other  a  mistaken  meaning 
of  God's  Word,  on  certain  points.  That  is,  and  will  forever 
remain,  the  real  question  between  them."  " 

This  divergence — divisive  at  the  start — centering  always 
somewhere  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  or  of  His  Person,  funda- 
mental all  the  way  from  Luther's  early  teaching  down  to  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  affected  all  the  great  doctrines,  the  Law 
and  the  Gospel,  the  Scriptures,  the  Word  and  the  Sacrament, 
the  Ministry,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  pre-eminently 
the  culminating  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  It  has  been 
fruitful  in  unspeakable  mischiefs,"  and  has,  more  than  all 


»  Con.   Ref.,   p.   457. 


784        THE   LUTHER    N   CONFESSIONS. 

other  causes,  rendered  the  struggle  against  Rome"  prolonged 
and  dubious." 

To  knov/  and  believe  Jesus  Christ,  true  God,  true  man, 
as  the  Scriptures  reveal  Him,  was  the  underlying  task  of  the 
Reformation  as  it  is  of  every  other  earnest  age.  Luther, 
drinking  in  Scripture  with  his  whole  mind  and  heart,  knew 
and  trusted  Christ  as  a  real  Person,  moving  freely  if  in- 
comprehensively  as  one  Person  in  the  spheres  of  his  man- 
hood and  of  his  Godhead.  The  communication  of  the  prop- 
erties of  the  divine  nature  to  the  weaker  human  nature,  not 
mechanically,  but  in  the  vital  unity  of  the  Person ;  and  with- 
out a  weakening  of  the  human  by  the  divine  overshadowing; 
or  an  abuse  of  the  divine  glory  and  fullness  by  the  mechanical 
or  cai)ricious  infringement  of  the  human ;  was  a  fundamental 
doctrine,  was  a  commonplace,  was  the  very  staff  of  life  in 
the  Christ-faith  of  Luther. 


THE    DIVERGENCE    IS    ROOTED    IN    TvUTHER. 

Yet  this  basal  fact  as  to  the  communicatio  idiomatum, 
in  Luther's  doctrine,  is  rarely  recognized  by  non-Lutheran 
theologians,  and  the  doctrine  is  supposed  to  have  been  im- 
ported from  scholastic  theology,  and  forcibly  injected  into 
the  Lutheran  Faith  by  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Despite 
the  abundant  quotations  from  Luther  by  the  Formula,  which 
quotations  constitute  the  substance  of  the  Formula's  teaching 
on  this  subject,  the  existence  of  the  fact  that  the  Person  of 
Christ  can  and  does  use  the  divine  properties,  as  being  at 
the  call  of  the  personal  unity,  to  enable  the  inseparable  per- 

"  Not  only  in  the  sense  in  which  Krauth  discusses  it,  as  weakening  and  divid- 
ing the  Protestant  unity ;  but  also  in  the  sense  that  the  apprehension  of 
Calvinism  is  often  Roman  rather  than  Lutheran.  "  The  whole  conception  of 
the  Christian  life  as  Calvin  draws  it,  is  Roman  Catholic  rather  than  Protestant. 
The  essential  feature  of  Luther's  message  was  that  in  Christ  we  were  free 
to  live  more  and  more  unto  righteousness.  ...  On  ethical  grounds  we 
may  say  that  Calvin  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  schoolmen.  Thomas  Aquinas 
is  greatly  his  superior  as  an  ethical  thinker. — Hibbert  Journal,  VI,  1,  p.  184 
(1907). 

2'  Con.  Rrf.,  p.  4  57. 


TEE   PERSON   OF   CHRIST.  785 

son,  divine  and  human,  human  as  well  as  divine,  to  perform 
its  wondrous  work  of  redemption — whether  on  the  Cross,  or 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  or  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Supper,  or  in  the  hearts  of  believers, — more  readily  than 
the  sun  communicates  its  properties  to  the  atmospheric  ether 
and  is  present  for  creation,  vivification,  and  fructification  at 
any  and  every  point  in  the  planetary  system — without  at 
the  same  time  failing  or  falling  short  of  its  central  specifi- 
cally proper  presence  in  the  sun  itself, — the  existence  of  this 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christ  in  the  Lutheran  faith,  prior 
to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  usually  denied  by  the  theo- 
logians of  the  Protestant  Churches,  English  and  German." 
Even  Dr.  Valentine "  affirms  that  the  genus  majestaticum 
is  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  though  he  sub- 
sequently admits  that  its  substance  was  maintained  by 
Lutlier. 

Let   us    hear   what   Luther   himself   has   to    say   on    this 
doctrine,  wliieh  is  so  contemptuously  characterized  as  ^  "  the 


-*  E.   g.,   Dorner   In   Germany,   Lindsay   in   England,    and    Schaff   in   America. 

The  shining  of  the  sun  upon  the  earth,  as  alluded  to  in  the  Second  Helvetic 
Confession,  confirms  the  Lutheran,  not  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ment. "  As  the  sun,"  says  this  Confession,  "  is  far  away  over  us  in  the 
Heaven  [it  is  not  /or  away  for  a  sun,  just  as  a  preacher  in  the  pulpit  is  not 
absent  or  '  far  away  '  from  any  who  come  within  the  range  of  his  powerful 
voice],  yet  is  none  the  less  efficaciously  present  [it  is  visibly  present,  as  near  in 
Its  nature  as  the  gas  light  over  the  table  is  near  in  its  nature]  ...  so 
much  the  more  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  absent  from  us  in  the  Heavens  in 
His  Body  [are  "the  Heavens  "  a  room  that  shuts  Him  in?]  is  present  to  us 
not  indeed  corporeally,  but  spiritually  [what  becomes  of  His  body  meantime] 
by  a  life-giving  activity." 

The  presence  of  the  sun  upon  the  earth,  is  such  a  Real  Presence,  in,  with 
and  under  the  atmosphere  through  which  it  penetrates,  that  it  not  only 
appeals  to  and  affects  the  body,  but  is  visible  in  itself  and  in  its  effects  of 
heat.  It  is  not  the  spiritual  presence  of  the  sun  that  overcomes  a  man  with 
sunstroke,  or  that  prints  its  glorious  image  of  real  light  upon  the  surface 
of  the  camera. 

"  Christian  Theology. 

-'  Schaff  and  all  similar  writers  in  loco.  The  insinuation  against  the 
Lutheran  Faith  has  filtered  down  into  current  modern  theology,  probably 
through  Dorner.  Thus,  Gore,  on  the  basis  of  Dorner,  characterizes  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  as  follows : — 

"  The  quasi-Nestorian  tendency  was  checked  in  Luther  by  the  sacramental 
controversy.  Driven  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  our  Lord's 
body  and  blood  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  by  a  theory  of  the  ubiquity 
of  our  Lord  even  in  His  humanity,  he  was  led  to  speak  of  this  ubiquity  as 
resulting  from  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures,  and  of  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum  from  one  to  the  other  as  existing  from  the  beginning 
of  the   Incarnation.      This   led   to   a   development   of   thought   in    a   Monophysite 


786         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  introduced  into  Lutheran  theology 
by  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  order  to  give  support  to  its 
theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  The  Formula  quotes  from 
Luther  as  follows : — 

LUTIIER    ON    THE    PERSON    OF    CHEIST. 

"Our  reasons  are  those  which  Dr.  Luther  himself, ''  in  the  very  beginning, 
presented  against  the  Sacramentarians  in  the  following  words:  'The  reasons  upon 
which  I  rest  in  this  matter  are  the  following: 

"  '1.  The  first  is  this  article  of  our  faith:  Jesus  Christ  is  essential,  natural, 
true,  perfect  God  and  man  in  one  person,  undivided  and  inseparable. 

"  '2.      The  second,  that  God's  right  hand  is  everywhere. 

"  '  3.      The  third,  that  God's  Word  is  not  false  and  does  not  deceive. 

"  '4.  The  fourth  that  God  has  and  knows  of  many  modes  of  being  in  any 
place,  and  not  only  the  single  one  concerning  which  fanatics  talk  flippantly  and 
which  philosophers  call  local.' 

"Also:    '  The  one  body  of  Christ  [says  Luther]    has  a  three-fold  mode  or  three 
modes  of  being  anywhere. 

"  'First,  the  comprehensible,  bodily  mode,  as  he  went  about  in  the  body 
upon  earth,  when,  according  to  his  size,  he  occupied  room,  and  was  circum- 
scribed by  fixed  places.  This  mode  he  can  still  use  whenever  he  will,  as  he  did 
after  the  resurrection,  and  will  use  at  the  last  day,  as  Paul  says  (I  Tim.  6:  15)  : 
'  Which  in  his  times  He  shall  show  who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the 
King  of  kings   and   Lord  of   lords.'     And    to    the    Colossians    (3:  4)    he  says: 


rather  than  a  Nestorian  direction,  and  this  rival  tendency,  which  renders 
Luther's  Christology  very  difficult  to  understand  as  a  whole,  became  dominant 
In  the  Lutheran  schools.  It  resulted  in  the  formation  of  a  Christology  based 
on  ubiquitarianism,  which  Dr.  A.  B.  Bruce,  without  undue  severity,  pro- 
nounces to  be,  to  an  amazing  extent,  'artificial,  unnatural  and  incredible.'  " — 
Gore,  Dissertations  on   the  Incarnation,  pp.    181,   182. 

Thus  also  Lindsay,  as  late  as  1906,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  p. 
356,  will  repeat  the  old  slander.  He  says :  "  A  controversy  soon  raged  in 
Wittenberg  to  the  scandal  of  German  Protestantism.  Luther  insisted  more 
and  more  on  the  necessity  of  the  Presence  in  the  elements  of  the  Body  of 
Christ  '  corporeally  extended   in  space.'  " 

On  page  357  he  says  again,  "  Luther,  looking  mainly  at  the  mediaeval 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  taught:  (1)  .  .  .  (2)  That  .  .  there  must 
be  in  the  Bread  and  Wine  the  local  Presence  of  the  Glorified  Body  of 
Christ  which  he  always  conceived  as  '  Body  extended  in  space.'  .  .  .  (3) 
That  this  local  Presence  of  Christ  does  not  presuppose  any  special  priestly 
miracle,  for,  in  virtue  of  its  ubiquity,  the  Glorified  Body  of  Christ  Is  every- 
where naturally,    and   therefore   is   in   the   Bread   and   in   the   Wine." 

Thus  also  on  page  358  he  says,  "  Luther  depends  on  a  questionable 
medlaval  Idea  of  ubiquity,  .  .  .  Zwingli  spent  all  his  argumentative 
powers  in  disputing  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity  .  .  .  Zwingli  maintained  that 
Christ  could  not  be  present,  extended  in  space,  in  the  elements."  (This  Is 
said  of  the  Marburg  Colloquy  with  which  compare  Luther's  and  Melanchthon'a 
letter  after  the  close  of  the  Colloquy.) 

'"  In  his  Large  Confession,  concerning  the  Holy  Supper. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  787 

'When  Christ  who  is  our  life  shall  appear.'  In  this  manner  he  is  not  in  God  or 
with  the  Father,  neither  in  heaven,  as  the  wild  spirits  dream:  for  God  is  not  a 
bodily  space  or  place.  And  to  this  effect  are  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  the 
fanatical  spirits  cite,  how  Christ  left  the  world  and  went  to  the  P"ather. 

" '  Secondly,  the  incomprehensible,  spiritual  mode,  according  to  which  he 
neither  occupies  nor  makes  room,  but  penetrates  all  creatures  according  to  his 
most  free  will,  as,  to  make  an  imperfect  comparison,  my  sight  penetrates  air, 
light  or  water,  and  does  not  occupy  or  make  room;  as  a  sound  or  tone  penetrates 
air  or  water  or  board  and  wall,  and  is  in  them,  and  also  does  not  occupy  or  make 
room;  likewise,  as  light  and  heat  penetrate  air,  water,  glass,  crystal,  and  the 
like,  and  is  in  them,  and  also  does  not  make  or  occupy  room;  and  much  more  of 
the  like.  This  mode  he  used  when  he  rose  from  the  sealed  sepulchre,  and 
passed  through  the  closed  door,  and  in  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy  Supper, 
and,  as  it  is  believed,  when  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

"'Thirdly,  the  divine,  heavenly  mode,  since  he  is  one  person  with  God, 
according  to  which  all  creatures  must  be  far  more  penetrable  and  present  to  him 
than  they  are  according  to  the  second  mode.  For  if,  according  to  that  second 
mode,  he  can  be  so  in  and  with  creatures  that  they  do  not  feel,  touch,  circum- 
scribe or  comprehend  him,  how  much  more  wonderfully  is  he  in  all  creatures 
according  to  this  sublime  third  mode,  so  that  they  neither  circumscribe  nor  com- 
prehend him,  but  rather  that  he  has  them  present  before  himself,  and  circum- 
scribes and  comprehends  them!  For  you  must  place  this  mode  of  the  presence 
of  Christ,  as  he  is  one  person  with  God,  as  far  beyond  creatures  as  God  is  be- 
yond them;  and  again  as  deep  and  near  to  all  creatures  as  God  is  in,  and  near 
them.  For  he  is  one  inseparable  person  with  God;  where  God  is  there  must  he 
also  be,  or  our  faith  is  false.  But  who  will  say  or  think  how  this  occurs?  We 
know  indeed  that  it  is  so,  that  he  is  in  God  beyond  all  creatures,  and  is  one  per- 
son with  God,  but  how  it  occurs  we  do  not  know;  this  mystery  is  above  nature 
and  reason,  even  above  the  reason  of  all  the  angels  in  heaven;  it  is  understood 
only  by  God.  Because,  therefore,  it  is  unknown  to  us,  and  yet  is  true,  we  should 
not  deny  his  words  before  we  know  how  to  prove  to  a  certainty  that  the  body  of 
Christ  can  by  no  means  be  where  God  is,  and  that  this  mode  of  presence  is  false. 
This  the  fanatics  ought  to  prove;  but  we  challenge  them  to  do  so. 

"' That  God  indeed  has  and  knows  still  more  modes  in  which  Christ's  body 
is  anywhere,  I  will  not  herewith  deny;  but  I  would  indicate  what  awkward  and 
stupid  men  our  fanatics  are,  that  they  concede  to  the  body  of  Christ  no  more  than 
the  first,  comprehensible  way;  although  they  cannot  even  prove  the  same,  that  it 
conflicts  with  our  meaning.  For  I  in  no  way  will  deny  that  the  power  of  God  is 
able  to  effect  so  much  as  that  a  body  should  at  the  same  time  be  in  a  number  of 
places,  even  in  a  bodily,  comprehensible  way.  F'or  who  will  prove  that  this  is 
impossible  with  God  ?  Who  has  seen  an  end  to  his  power  ?  The  fanatics  think 
indeed  that  God  cannot  effect  it,^"'  but  who  will  believe  their  thoughts  ?  Whereby 
will  they  confirm  such  thoughts  ?  ' 

"From  these  words  of  Dr.  Luther  it  is  also  clear  in  what  sense  the  word 
spiritual  is  employed  in  our  churches  with  reference  to  this  matter.     For  to  the 


Cf.    Epitome,    vii  :    32.    34. 


788        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Sacramentarians  this  word  spiritual  means  nothing  else  than  the  spiritual  com- 
munion, when  through  faith  those  truly  believing  are  in  the  spirit  incorporated 
into  Christ,  the  Lord,  and  become  true  spiritual  members  of  his  body."  ^* 


WHENCE    LUTHER   DERIVED    HIS   DOCTRINE   OF    CHRIST. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  proceeds  to  show  how  Luther's 
doctrine  is  the  true  Scriptural  doctrine  as  over  against  the 
rationalistic,  scholastic  and  nnscriptural  doctrine  of  Zwingli. 
Many  of  onr  modern  writers  in  Reformed  theology  will  not 
admit  that  Luther  starts  solely  with  the  Scripture,  and  that 
his  use  of  the  metaphysical  modes  of  presence  are  but  an 
illustration  of  the  possibility  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in 
such  way  as  Scripture  actually  reveals  it. 

Thus  Schaff  declares  the  Reformation  doctrine  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  to  have  been  taken  bodily  from  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  especially  from  the  symbol  of  Chalcedon.  But 
the  true  fact  is  that  the  mighty  faith  of  Luther  owed  very 
little  directly  to  the  oriental  formularies.  Luther's  Christol- 
ogy  was  rooted  in  the  Scripture  itself,  of  whose  depths  he 
was  an  expounder ;  in  the  actual  and  living  Person  of  Christ 
as  he  found  it  in  St.  John,  St.  Matthew,  and  St.  Paul :  and 
in  the  concrete  Augustinian  apprehension  of  the  Gospel  as 
salvation  by  redemption,  rather  than  in  the  Eastern  appre- 
hension of  the  incarnation. 

The  East  emphasized  the  union  of  two  natures ;  the  West 
emphasized  the  unity  of  Person ;  and  Luther,  starting  in 
Scripture,  followed  the  West.**  He  revitalized  the  doctrine 
of  the  Person,  under  the  powerful  and  practical  aspect  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  in  such  way  that  Christ 


^Formula  of  Concord,  p.   620. 

'*  Athanasius  said:  "  My  Saviour  must  be  the  great  God  who  made  heaven 
and  earth  ;  and  He  must  unite  the  human  and  divine  natures  which  He  pos- 
sesses, In  a  union  which  for  me  is  a  mystery  to  be  believed,  but  which  my 
Intelligence  can  never  explain  nor  penetrate."  But  Augustine  thus  beautifully 
describes  Christ,  "  The  Son  of  God  ever,  the  Son  of  Man  In  time,  yet  one 
Christ  in  the  unity  of  the  Person.  He  was  in  heaven  when  He  was  speaking 
upon  earth.  Thus  He  was  Son  of  Man  in  heaven  in  the  same  manner  In 
which  He  was  Son  of  God  on  earth  ;  Son  of  God  on  earth  In  the  flesh  which  He 
took  upon  Him  ;  Son  of  Man  In  heaven  in  the  unity  of  the  Person." 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  789 

was  for  liim  not  a  biography  in  a  book  belonging  to  past  ages, 
whose  character  and  work  are  to  be  discussed ;  but  the  one 
Man  who  now  lived  and  ruled  and  wrought  salvation  in 
human  souls ;  and  who  though  Man  was  God.  He  was  Son 
of  Man  in  Heaven  in  the  same  maimer  in  which  He  was  Son 
of  God  on  earth:  of  God — in  the  flesh  He  took  upon  Him; 
of  Man — in  the  unity  of  the  Person.  He  was  in  Heaven 
when  He  was  speaking  upon  earth. 

Luther  thus  followed  Augustine,  who  went  back  to  the  old 
Church  tradition  of  Tertullian  through  Ambrose.  There  was 
no  indistinctness,  and  no  fusion  in  the  natures ;  but  the  clue 
to  the  Person  of  Christ  was  to  be  found  in  the  statement  of 
Paul  that  Christ  existed  '  in  the  form  of  God/  and  took  upon 
Him  '  the  form,  of  a  servant/  These  two  forms  co-existed 
in  the  unity  of  the  Person.  Every  justified  believer  feels 
the  power  of  this  unity :  "  there  is  a  Man  in  Whom  God 
dwells,  and  Who  is  God."  "  Proprium  illius  hominis  sacra- 
nientum  est." '"  Hence  Luther  strongly  asserts,  "  whatso- 
ever I  behold  in  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  both  human  and 
divine."  "  "  Wherever  thou  canst  say.  Here  is  God,  there 
must  thou  also  say.  Therefore  Christ  the  Man  is  also  here. 
And  if  thou  shouldst  point  out  a  place  where  God  was  and 
not  the  Man,  then  would  the  Person  be  already  divided, 
since  I  might  then  say  with  truth,  Here  is  God,  who  is  not 
man,  and  never  yet  became  man.  But  nothing  of  that  God 
for  me!  .  .  .  Nay,  friend,  wherever  thou  placest  God  for 
me,  there  must  thou  also  place  for  me  the  human  nature. 
They  cannot  be  separated  and  divided  from  each  other. 
There  has  come  to  be  One  Person."  '* 

NOT   A   POLEMIC   NECESSITY. 

This  is  the  inmost  faith  of  Luther's  heart  trusting  in  the 
grace  of  Christ  for  his  salvation.     Such  a  mighty  living  faith 

"  Augustine. 

^^Erl.,   47.    361.    sq. 

"/6..   30.    211.  ^      __   , 


790         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

in  Chrii^t  as  God  had  not  appeared  since  the  time  of  Athanas- 
ius.  Such  a  help  from  the  mystery  of  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ  had  not  been  known  in  the  Church  since 
the  time  of  Cyril/*  To  say,  then,  that  Luther's  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  was  a  result  of  polemical  necessity, 
a  means  of  defending  his  doctrine  to  which  he  had  recourse 
in  the  controversy  with  Zwingli,  is  to  place  his  teaching  on 
Christ  under  as  great  a  theological  misrepresentation,  as  it 
is  to  misrepresent  his  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  by  declaring 
that  he  taught  transubstantiation  or  consubstantiation/*  To 
know  Luther  is  to  recognize  the  falseness,  and  indeed  the 
impossibility,  of  his  having  built  up  a  Christology  by  the 
adroit  use  of  a  scholastic  mode.  Luther's  fathom-deep  in- 
sight into  Scripture  caused  him  to  discover  that  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  there  revealed  as  the  organ  and  bearer 
of  the  divine  nature,  in  the  whole  Revelation  and  in  all  the 
Operations  of  grace,  from  the  time  of  His  conception,  to 
the  time  of  His  Second  Coming,  and  thereafter  forever;  and 
this  most  naturally  included  the  elements  of  miracle  and 
sacrament.  "  Luther's  most  profound  ideas  concerning  the 
knowledge  of  God  and  faith  may  be  understood  in  the 
light "  "  of  this  teaching  of  Christ. 

When,  therefore,  Luther  came  to  more  clearly  formulate 
his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  under  attacks  from  with- 
out, what  else  could  he  do  but  present  it  in  the  light  of  its 
proper  background  in  the  Person  of  Christ?  What  the 
Person  of  Christ  was  and  did  on  earth  it  would  be  and  do  in 
Heaven.  He  would  be  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God  in  all 
His  acts  in  Heaven,  as  He  had  been  on  earth ;  and  His  pres- 
ence would  be  a  presence  of  the  person  on  earth,  whether 
spiritual  (John  6),  sacramental  (The  Lord's  Supper),  or 
local  (the  Parousia),  in  the  future,  as  it  had  been  in  the 
past. 


"  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma,  VII,   173. 

»*  A  stigma  fastened  on  Luther  by  Schaff.      {Creeds,  I,  pp.  232,  316.) 

"  Seeberg,  Hist.  Doctrines,  I,   252. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  791 

His  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  like  all  his  othor 
doctrines,  was  developed  in  the  process  of  taking  that  which 
he  found  in  the  Church,  and  subjecting  it  to  the  test  of 
Scripture/" 


LUTHER  S  RESCUE  OF  THE  SACRAMENT. 

Hence  his  rescue  of  the  Scriptural  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  from  Romish  tradition,  and  his  grounding  of  the 
true  doctrine,  were  gradual.  L^^nder  the  influence  of  Scrip- 
ture, he  had  to  steer  clear  not  only  of  the  false  but  central 
fact  of  the  Romish  Mass ;  but  also  of  its  antithesis,  viz.,  a 
false  spiritualism,  manifesting  itself  just  at  this  time  in  the 
pious  mysticism  of  the  later  Middle  Ages." 

In  being  confronted  with  the  Mass  and  the  other  Roman 
Sacraments,  Luther  had  begun  his  thought  with  the  Augus- 
tinian  conception  of  a  sacrament  as  a  "  sign  which  helps  and 
incites  to  faith,"  ^  and  even  later  he  still  spoke  of  the  sacra- 
ment as  an  "  outward  sign,"  a  "  seal  or  signet  ring."  **  By 
1519,  he  came  to  be  clearer  both  as  to  Baptism  (Sermon  von 
dem  heiligen,  Tiochwurdigen  Sdkrament  der  Taufe)  ;  and  as 
to  the  Lord's  Supper ;  although  in  his  Ein  Sermon  v.  d.  hochw. 
Sacrament  des  Leichnams  Christi  un.  v.  d.  Bruderschaften, 
of  1519,  transubstantiation  was  not  yet  separated  from 
Luther's  original  and  always  abiding  belief  of  the  presence 


'"  This  in  our  judgment  expresses  in  a  word  all  that  is  to  be  said  as  to 
Luther's  dependency  on  Occam,  D'Ailly,  Biel  and  the  scholastics.  To  derive 
a  doctrine,  and  to  illustrate  its  possibility  from  an  extraneous  sphere 
are  two  entirely  different  methods.  The  Colloquy  at  Marburg  showed  whence 
Luther  derived  his  doctrine,  and  whence  Zwingli  derived  his.  To  assert  of  a 
modern  writer  like  C.  P.  Krauth  that  he  derived  his  theology  from  Berkeley 
or  from  Kant,  would  be  on  a  par  with  declaring  that  Luther  gained  his  Person 
of  Christ  and  his  Real   Presence  aside   from,   not  in   Scripture. 

"  Compare  especially  the  "  inner  word  "  of  the  spirit,  which  has  no  need 
of  the  "  bodily  "  word  ;  and  the  "  divesting  self  of  material  things,"  in  the 
Imitatio7i  of  Thomas  A.  Kempis  ;  and  the  whole  circle  of  mystical,  ascetic, 
apocalyptic  and  socialistic  ideas  which  broke  forth  upon  him  in  the  Zwickau 
prophets,  Carlstadt  and   Miinzer. 

«8  Walch,  II,  686,  693. 

''Erl.,  12.   178f;   16.   48,   50,   52. 


793         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  from  1520 
on,  he  definitely  rejected  transubstantiation  as  a  Thomistic 
fiction,  and  laid  down  his  doctrine  in  his  Sermon  on  the 
Mass,  in  1520.  The  mass  is  not  a  sacrifice,  and  the  body 
is  to  be  received  in  hath  elements.  Faith  in  Christ's  bodily 
and  personal  presence  is  everything:  "If  I  believe  that 
His  body  and  blood  are  mine,  then  I  have  the  Lord  Christ 
entire,  and  everything  that  he  is  able  to  accomplish." 

It  was  in  1522  that  Luther  first  heard  from  the  Bohemian 
Brethren  that  they  held  the  bread  and  wine  as  bare  symbols; 
and  that  Honius  of  Holland  wrote  to  him  that  he  inter- 
preted the  est  as  equivalent  to  significat.  Carlstadt  also  pro- 
posed that  "  This "  refers  to  the  body,  but  "  Take "  and 
"  Eat "  refer  to  the  bread.  Thus  was  Luther  forced  to  a 
new  investigation,  and  he  decided  for  an  adherence  to  the 
very  word  of  Scripture,"  as  well  as  for  the  bodily  omni- 
presence, since  '  Christ  does  not  continually  keep  traveling 
from  heaven  to  earth.'  "  His  eyes  were  opened  to  the  supreme 
importance  of  the  bodily  presence,  and  he  saw  that  it  is  not 
merely  a  means  of  realizing  the  sacramental  gift,  but  the 
gift  itself. 

Meanwhile,  in  1523,  Luther  found  that  Zwingli,  who  had 
learned  of  the  correspondence  of  Honius  with  Luther,  had 
adopted  the  interpretation  of  Honius;  and,  basing  his  argu- 
ment upon  John  6,  "  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,"  had  used 
the  scholastic  conception  of  the  existence  of  the  body  of  Christ 
as  local,  and  as  not  able  therefore  to  be  in  the  Supper.  A 
little  later  Luther  published  his  work  "  Against  the 
Heavenly  Prophets,"  in  1524-25,"  in  which  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  is  developed  and  is  practically  complete;  and  his 
letter  to  the  Strassburgers,  1524." 


*0Erl.,   11.   187. 

"/?>.,  28.  412f;  29.  329,  331;  393,  396,  398. 

«/&.,  29.  289,  293f. 

"lb.,   29. 

**De  Wette,   II,   574  sqq. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  793 

In  1525  Zwingli  determined  to  attack  the  teaching  of 
Luther  and  proposed  to  undermine  the  authority  of  Luther." 
Zwingli  sent  a  fictitious  letter  to  Alberus  and  attempted  in 
many  ways  to  win  the  South  Germans  away  from  Luther. 
Oecolampadius,  Bucer,  and  Capito  aided  Zwingli  in  this 
attempt,  and  unscrupulous  means  were  employed — e.  g.,  the 
text  of  Bugenhagen's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  and  the 
notes  in  the  translation  of  Luther's  Church  Postils  were 
corrupted — in  order  to  stir  np  agitation  against  Luther's 
doctrine  in  South  Germany/*  Those  who  understand  clearly 
what  Luther  was  dealing  with  cannot  condemn  his  severity 
"  when  he  finally  broke  his  silence  and  entered  the  fray.  It 
is  more  important  to  set  forth  clearly  the  spirit  of  these 
opponents  and  the  historic  base  of  it,  than  to  shudder  at  the 
thought  of  Luther's  coarseness  in  dealing  with  them."  "  This 
is  all  the  more  true  since  we  now  know  that  Zwingli's  de- 
pendence upon  Luther  (notwithstanding  Zwingli's  protests 
to  the  contrary)  is  a  settled  fact.* 

Luther's  own  view  of  the  morality  of  Zwingli  and  his 
compeers  in  these  transactions  is  that  it  is  very  low.  He 
says,  "  My  free,  open,  simple  snapping  at  the  devil  is  to 
my  notion  much  better  than  their  poisonous,  plotting,  as- 
sassination, which  they  practice  against  the  npright  under 
the  pretence  of  peace  and  love."  " 

It  was  in  1525  that  Luther  first  applied  the  doctrine  of 
the  personal  omnipresence  of  Christ  to  the  human  nature  in 
the  sacrament,  and  in  1526  he  published  his  "  Sermon  on  the 
Sacrament."^"  In  1527  he  wrote:  "That  these  Words: 
This  is  my  Body,  stand  firm;'*  and  in  1528,  his  "  Confes- 


"  Walther,   1.   c.   p.,  815   sqq.,   916  sqq. 

"£H.,  30.  24,  38,  61,  98,  139,  148  sqq.,  160,  205. 

"  Seeberg,  Hist.   Doctrines,  II.  320. 

«  Usteri,    1.    c,    mdhelin,    Zw.    I.    164ff.,    175f.,    Kaicerau     (Moller,    Kirch. 
Oesch.,  in.  46),  quoted  by  Seeberg,  II,  308. 

"  ErL,  30.   266. 

5»/b.,   29.    329. 


794         THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

sion  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.''''  "  Then  came  the  Col- 
loquy at  Marburg/""  where  Luther  told  the  Zwinglians  that 
they  had  "  another  spirit,"  but  nevertheless  hoped  for  a 
"  good-natured  friendly  harmony,  that  they  may  in  a  friendly 
spirit  seek  among  us  for  that  wliieh  they  lack ;  " "  while 
Zwingli  wrote  that  "Luther,  impudent  and  contumacious, 
was  vanquished  .  .  .  although  he  declared  himself  uncon- 
quered."  The  Schwabach  Articles  follow,  making  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
Then  comes  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Bucer's  interview  with 
Melanchthon  in  1533,  the  Wittenberg  Concord"  in  153G, 
and  its  failure;  and  Luther's  last  work.  Short  Confession 
of  the  Holy  Sacrament  1545/^ 

THE    COMMUNICATIO    IDIOMATUM    VS.    THE    ZWINGLIAN 
ALLOEOSIS. 

We  have  seen  that  Luther  taught  the  presence  of  the  Body 


'■^Erl.,  30. 

°^  "  The  Colloquy  at  Marburg  could  not,  under  the  circumstances,  lead  to 
harmony,  although  Zwingli,  impelled  by  political  considerations  ('  Burgrecht  '), 
made  as  large  concessions  as  possible  to  the  Lutherans.  Agreement  was 
indeed  reached  upon  fourteen  articles  of  faith,  modeled  upon  formulas  drawn 
by  Luther  (Trinity,  Christ,  original  sin,  faith,  justification,  word,  baptism, 
works,  civil  government).  .  .  Luther,  although  he  had  not  hesitated  to  express 
to  the  Strassburgers  his  conviction  that  they  had  '  another  spirit,'  yet  hoped 
for  a  '  good-natured  friendly  harmony,  that  they  may  in  a  friendly  spirit  seek 
among  us  for  that  which  they  lack'  (E.  36.  322).  Zwingli  wrote:  'Luther, 
impudent  and  contumacious,  was  vanquished  .  .  .  although  he  mean- 
while declared  that  he  was  unconquered  '  (opp.  viii.  370)." — Seeberg.  Hist, 
of  Doctrines,  II,  p.  330.  Vid.  also  the  correspondence  of  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon after  the  Marburg  Colloquy,  and  Article  in  The  Lutheran  Church  Review, 
"  Is  there  Any  New  Light  Concerning  the  Schwabach  Articles?"   28.  278. 

"£ri.,   36.   322. 

"  "  Nor  did  the  Witte7iberg  Concord  (A.  D.  1536),  produce  an  actual  and 
permanent  agreement.  From  the  time  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  Bucer  labored 
unweariedly  to  bring  about  an  agreement  between  the  Saxons  and  the  the- 
ologians of  Southern  Germany.  His  formula  was :  '  That  the  true  body  and 
the  true  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are  truly  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  are 
offered  with  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  the  sacrament.'  Both  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  hoped  that  an  understanding  might  be  reached  upon  this  basis. 
But  Lwther  did  not  change  his  own  opinion.  Although  he  was  willing  to  re- 
frain from  laying  special  stress  upon  the  assertion,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  present  also  for  the  unbelieving,  yet  the  formula  finally  adopted  expresses 
his  view  :  '  That  with  the  bread  and  wine  are  truly  and  substantially  present, 
offered,  and  received  (vere  et  substantialiter  adesse,  e:rhiberi  et  sumi)  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  '  "- — Seeberg,  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  II,  p.  331.  Cp. 
Book  of  Concord,  II,  p.   253  sqq. 

'''  Erl.,   32.    396   sqq. 


THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST.  795 

of  Christ  in  the  Supper  from  the  beginning,  and  that  it  was 
a  seal  to  the  believing  communicant  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  wrought  by  it.  We  have  seen,  likewise,  how  funda- 
mental the  Communicatio  Idiomatum  in  the  Person  of 
Christ  was  to  the  daily,  living  faith  of  Luther.  As  he  said, 
*'  God  '  dwells  '  in  Christ  bodily,  so  that  one  person  is  man 
and  God."  '^  "  The  two  natures  are  '  one  single  person  ' "  in 
inseparable  union,  so  that  where  the  one  is  the  other  must 
also  bo." "''  "  They  are  to  each  other  as  body  and  soul ;  °*  and 
the  flesh  is  a  spirit-flesh.  It  is  in  God  and  God  in  it."  ^ 
"  The  same  Christ  who  has  secured  for  us  grace  and  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  is  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper  in  order 
to  assure  us  of  His  redeeming  act."  "  This  is  the  great  point, 
that  Christ  the  actual  person,  the  historical  Redeemer,  the 
One  well  known  and  Who  on  earth  performed  all  the  acts 
of  redemption  is  present  here  in  the  Supper ;  and  that  as  He, 
the  God-man,  was  apprehended  historically  on  earth  only  in 
the  presence  and  contacts  of  His  human  life,  so  this  same 
Man  Jesus  with  the  human  nature,  by  which  He  gained 
our  salvation,  is  present  by  His  body  in  the  Holy  Com- 
munion to  personally  seal  the  salvation  He  gained.  How 
His  body  is  present  (whether  by  a  certain  supernatural 
mode,  or  in  any  one  of  a  hundred  other  ways  possible  to 
God — but  certainly  not  in  a  mechanical  ubiquity)  is  not 
essential,  and  does  not  belong  to  the  doctrine." 

\^Tien  then  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  Zwingli  was  forced  on  Luther,  his  faith  in  the 
Person  of  Christ  Who  was  present  on  earth  as  a  Man  to 
redeem,  and  Who  will  be  present  again  as  a  Man  to  restore, 
and  Who  is  present,  according  to  His  own  word  and  Testa- 


^^  Erl.,  30.   63. 

"lb.,   30.  63,  206   sq.,   211,   222. 

^Ib.,  211  sq. 

'*Ib.,  204. 

^Ib.,  30.  125;  48.   28,   58. 

«Ib.,   29.    348;   48.    23;    30.   85,   134,    137. 

^'Ib.j  30.   200.   202,   210,    217. 


7dG         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

meiit  in  His  Sacrament  to  seal,  was  as  real  and  living;  as 
Zwingli's  definitions  of  the  two  natures  were  scholastic,  ab- 
stract and  artificial;  and,  in  the  Lutheran  Faith,  as  over 
against  the  theory  of  Oecolampadius,  Bucer  and  Calvin,  we 
believers  are  not  merely  thinking  of  Him,  as  present  by  an 
effort  of  our  imagination;''  nor  to  see  in  His  Sacrament 
''  a  sign  of  a  future  or  absent  thing;  "  but  to  hold  to  it  as 
tlie  presence,  under  the  visible  form  of  the  elements,  of 
''  His  invisible  body  and  blood." 

So  far  then  from  the  particular  Lutheran  explication  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  being  an  invention  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  the  Formula  itself  draws  attention  to 
the  Luthero-Zwinglian  divergence  of  half  a  century  earlier, 
as  the  final  development  of  the  whole  matter.     It  says : — 

"Inasmuch  as  Dr.  Luther  has  written  concerning  the  alloeosis  of  Zwingli  in 
his  large  Confession  concerning  the  Holy  Supper,  we  will  here  present  Luther's 
own  words,  in  order  that  the  Church  of  God  may  he  guarded  in  the  best  way 
against  this  error.      His  words  are  as  follows: — 

"  '  Zwingli  calls  that  an  alloeosis,  when  anything  is  ascribed  to  the  divinity 
of  Christ  which  nevertheless  belongs  to  the  humanity  or  the  reverse.  As  Luke 
24:  26:  '  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his 
glory  ? '  Here  Zwingli  triflingly  declares  that  the  word  Christ  is  understood  with 
respect  to  the  human  nature.  Beware,  beware,  I  say,  of  the  alloeosis;  for  it  is  a 
mask  of  the  devil,  as  it  at  last  forms  such  a  Christ  after  which  I  certainly  would 
not  be  a  Christian.  For  its  design  is  that  Christ  should  henceforth  be  no  more, 
and  do  no  more  with  his  sufferings  and  life,  than  another  mere  saint.  For  if  I 
permit  myself  to  be  persuaded  that  only  the  human  nature  has  suffered  for  me, 
Christ  is  to  me  a  Saviour  of  little  worth,  since  he  indeed  himself  stands  in  need 
of  a  Saviour.      In  a  word,  what  the  devil  seeks  by  the  alloeosis  is  inexpressible.' 

"And  shortly  afterwards:  '  If  the  old  sorceress,  Dame  Reason,  the  grand- 
mother of  the  alloeosis,  should  say.  Yea,  divinity  can  neither  suffer  nor  die;  you 
should  reply,  That  is  true;  yet,  because  in  Christ  divinity  and  humanity  are  one 
person.  Scripture,  on  account  of  this  personal  union,  ascribes  also  to  divinity 
everything  that  occurs  to  the  humanity,  and  the  reverse.  And  thus,  indeed,  it  is 
in  truth.  For  this  must  certainly  be  acknowledged,  viz.,  the  person  (he  refers  to 
Christ)  suffers  and  dies.  Now  the  person  is  true  God;  therefore,  it  is  rightly  said: 
The  Son  of  God  suffers.  For  although  the  one  part  (so  to  say),  viz.,  the  divinity, 
does  not  suffer,  yet  the  person,  which  is  God,  suffers  in  the  other  part,  viz.,  in  his 


''  Just  as  moderns  subjectivize  the  whole  incarnation,  redemption,  atone- 
ment, and  the  act  of  justification ;  and  thinlc  it  into  being  as  an  act  of  the 
Imagination,  instead  of  holding  to  it  vitally  as  a  mighty  fact. 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  797 

humanity;  for  in  truth  God's  Son  has  been  crucified  for  us,  i.  e.  the  person  which 
is  God.  For  the  person,  the  person,  I  say,  was  crucified  according  to  the 
humanity.' 

"And  again  shortly  afterwards:  '  If  the  alloeosis  exist,  as  Zwingli  proposes,  it 
will  be  necessary  for  Christ  to  have  two  persons,  one  divine  and  one  human,  be- 
cause Zwingli  applies  the  passages  concerning  suffering,  alone  to  the  human 
nature,  and  of  course  diverts  them  from  the  divinity.  For  if  the  works  be 
parted  and  disunited,  the  person  must  also  be  divided,  since  all  the  works  or  suf- 
ferings are  ascribed  not  to  the  natures,  but  to  the  person.  For  it  is  the  person 
that  does  and  suffers  everything,  one  thing  according  to  one  nature,  and  another 
according  to  the  other  nature.  Therefore  we  consider  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
God  and  man  in  one  person,  so  that  we  neither  confound  the  natures  nor  divide 
the  person.'  "  ^ 


THE    MAJESTATICUM    BELIEVED    BY    LUTHER. 

Not  only  did  Luther  from  the  heginning  teach  the  presence 
of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Supper ;  but  that  he  also  taught 
the  Genus  Majestaticum,  the  following  words  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord  will   show : — 

"  Upon  this  firm  foundation  Dr.  Luther,  of  holy  memory,  has  also  written 
concerning  the  majesty  of  Christ  according  to  human  nature. 

"  In  the  Large  Confession  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  he  writes  thus  con- 
cerning the  person  of  Christ:  '  Since  Christ  is  such  a  man  as  is  supernaturally  one 
person  with  God,  and  apart  from  this  man  there  is  no  God,  it  must  follow  that 
also,  according  to  the  third  supernatural  mode,  he  is  and  can  be  everywhere  that 
God  is,  and  all  things  are  entirely  full  of  Christ,  even  according  to  humanity, 
not  according  to  the  first  corporeal,  comprehensible  mode,  but  according  to  the 
supernatural,  divine  mode.'  For  here  you  must  confess  and  say:  'Wherever 
Christ  is  according  to  the  divinity,  there  he  is  a  natural,  divine  person,  and  he  is 


•*  Krauth  is  Illuminative :  "  As  these  two  natures  form  one  inseparable 
person,  the  whiole  person  is  involved  in  the  acts  of  each  part  of  it.  Everything 
that  the  Saviour  did  and  suffered  is  both  human  and  divine.  Every  act,  in- 
deed, is  done,  every  suffering  endured,  through  or  by  the  one  or  the  orher 
nature,  but  not  without  the  personal  presence  of  the  other.  Jesus  Christ 
wrought  miracles  through  the  divine  nature,  but  they  were  wrought  by  the 
human  nature.  Through  His  divine  omnipotence  sight  was  given  to  the 
blind,  but  His  divine  omnipotence  wrought  it  by  his  human  touch.  Jesus 
Christ  died  according  to  His  human  nature,  but  His  death  was  the  death  of  a 
divine  person.  Through  his  human  infirmity  He  was  crucified,  but  that  human 
weakness  wrought  by  His  divine  majesty  an  infinite  sacrifice.  Godhead  cannot 
bleed,   but  the  Church   is  purchased  by   the  blood   of  God. 

"  We  Lutherans  affirm  that  there  is  a  real  common  participation  of  the 
whole  person  in  the  properties  of  both  natures.  The  Reformed  deny  it,  and 
say  'that  each  nature  i.s  i.solated  from  the  other  iii  its  attributes.'  " — Coa 
Ref.,  p.  476  sq. 

54 


798        THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

also  there  naturally  and  personally,  as  his  conception  in  his  mother's  womb  well 
shows.  For  if  he  were  God's  Son,  he  must  naturally  and  personally  be  in  his 
mother's  womb  and  become  man.  But  if,  wherever  he  is,  he  is  naturally  and  per- 
sonally, he  must  also  be  in  the  same  place  as  man.  For  there  are  not  in  Christ 
two  separate  persons,  but  only  one  person.  Wherever  it  is,  there  the  person  is 
only  one  and  undivided;  and  wherever  you  can  say:  •  here  is  God,'  there  you 
must  also  say:  'Therefore  Christ  the  man  is  also  there.'  And  if  you  would  show 
a  place  where  God  would  be,  and  not  the  man,  the  person  would  be  already 
divided,  because  I  could  then  say  with  truth:  '  Here  is  God  who  is  not  man,  and 
who  never  as  yet  has  become  man. ' 

"  '  Far  be  it  from  me  that  I  should  acknowledge  or  worship  such  a  God.  For 
it  would  follow  hence  that  space  and  place  separated  the  two  natures  from  one 
another,  and  divided  the  person,  which,  nevertheless,  death  and  all  devils  could 
not  divide  or  rend  from  one  another.  And  there  would  remain  to  me  a  poor  sort 
of  Christ,  who  would  be  no  more  than  a  divine  and  human  person  at  the  same 
time  in  only  one  place,  and  in  all  other  places  he  nmst  be  only  a  mere  separate 
God  and  divine  person  without  humanity.  No,  friend,  wherever  you  place  God 
for  me,  there  you  must  also  place  with  him  for  me  humanity  ;  they  do  not  allow 
themselves  to  be  separated  or  divided  from  one  another.  They  become  one  per- 
son, which  as  Son  of  God  does  not  separate  from  itself  the  assumed  humanity. 

"  In  the  little  book  concerning  the  Last  Words  of  David,  which  Dr.  Luther 
wrote  shortly  before  his  death,  he  says  as  follows:  '  According  to  the  other,  the 
temporal,  human  birth,  the  eternal  power  of  God  has  also  been  given  him,  yet  in 
time,  and  not  from  eternity.  For  the  humanity  of  Christ  has  not  been  from 
eternity,  as  the  divinity;  but  as  we  reckon  and  write  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Mary,  is 
this  year  1543  years  old.  But  from  the  instant  when  divinity  and  humanity  were 
united  in  the  person,  the  man,  the  Son  of  Mary,  is  and  is  called  almighty, 
eternal  God,  has  eternal  might  and  has  created  and  sustains,  by  the  communicatio 
idiomatum,  all  things,  because  he  is  one  person  with  divinity,  and  is  also  true, 
God.  Of  this  he  speaks  (Matt.  11:  27):  'All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father;'  and  Matt.  28:  18:  'All  power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.' 
To  what  me?  To  me,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  Mary  and  born  man. 
From  eternity  I  had  it  of  the  Father,  before  I  became  man.  But  when  I  be- 
came man  I  received  it  in  time,  according  to  humanity,  and  kept  it  concealed  un- 
til my  resurrection  and  ascension;  then  it  was  to  be  manifested  and  declared,  as 
St.  Paul  says  (Rom.  1:  4):  'lie  is  declared  and  proved  to  be  a  Son  of  God 
with  power.'     John  (17:  10)  calls  it  'glorified.' 

"Similar  testimonies  are  found  in  Luther's  writings,  but  especially  in  the 
book:  'That  these  Words  still  stand  Firm,'  and  in  the  'Large  Confession  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Supper:'  to  which  writings,  as  well-grounded  explanations  of 
the  majesty  of  Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  of  his  testament,  we  refer, 
for  the  sake  of  brevity,  in  this  article,  as  well  as  in  the  Holy  Supper,  as  has  been 
heretofore  mentioned. ' '  ^ 

Krauth  states  the  point  clearly  thus :     "  God  became  man, 


« Book   of   Concord,   pp.    640,    641. 


THE   PERSON    OF    CHE/ST.  799 

but  Godhead  does  not  become  humanity.  A  man  is  God — ■ 
but  humanity  does  not  become  deity.  In  this  aspect  the 
Lutheran  Church  draws  a  distinction,  total  and  all-com- 
prehending between  the  presence  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ, 
and  the  presence  of  His  humanity.  Omnipresence  is  the 
essential  attribute  of  the  divine,  and  hence  His  Godhead 
is  necessarily,  in  and  of  itself,  in  virtue  of  its  own  nature 
present.  But  the  essential  attribute  of  the  human  is  to  have 
a  determinate  presence,  and  hence  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  has  such  a  determinate  presence,  nor  in  and  of  itself 
would  the  human  nature  have  any  otlior  presence;  but  as  it 
is  in  one  person  with  the  divine,  it  is  in  that  one  person 
rendered  present  with  and  through  the  divine.     .     . 

The  human  eye,  in  its  own  essence  or  nature,  has  no  power 
of  being  conscious  of  light;  but  .  .  .  the  eye  has  a  real 
sight  through  the  soul,  as  the  soul  has  its  sight  hy  the  eye. 
.  .  .  The  eye  does  not  become  spirit,  nor  the  soul  become 
matter;  nor  has  the  soul  one  consciousness  nor  the  eye 
another ;  but  .  .  .  there  is  a  common  participation  of  the 
two  natures  in  the  act  of  the  one  person ;  .  .  .  the  eye  itself 
really  receiving  a  distinct  set  of  powers,  from  its  union 
with  the  soul,  and  the  soul  exercising  its  own  essential 
power,  under  a  wholly  new  set  of  conditions,  in  consequence 
of  its  union  with  the  eye  .  .  .  There  is  no  transfer  of 
properties ;  but  there  is  a  common  participation  of  them. 
And  so  in  some  sense,  and  yet  with  the  infinite  difference 
made  by  the  nature  of  the  subjects  in  this  case,  we  reply  to 
the  sophism  against  the  doctrine  of  our  Church :  The  divine 
in  Christ  is  forever  divine ;  the  human  forever  human ;  but 
as  they  can  never  be  confounded,  so  can  they  never  be  sep- 
arated; and  the  one  person  participates  in  both,  and  each 
has  a  personal  communication  with  the  attribute  of  the 
other.     'Great    is   the   mystery   of   Godliness:      God    was 

MANIFEST  IN  THE  FLESH.'  "  °° 


Con.   Ref.,   pp.    479-481. 


800         THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Luther  always  conceived  of  the  Person  of  Christ  in  its 
real  unity;  Zwingli  conceived  of  it  under  the  two  logical 
categories  of  finite  and  infinite.  ,In  Luther's  doctrine,  the 
whole  Christ  was  in  every  Word  and  act,  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  the  culmination  and  essence  of  all  Words  and 
acts ;  but  in  Zwingli's  doctrine  Christ  was  differentiated  into 
the  abstract  quality  of  the  natures.  This  accounts  for  the 
persistent  Reformed  condemnation  of  the  Formula's  teach- 
ing "  on  the  Ubiquity,"  from  Hospinian  in  the  Sixteenth 
Century  to  Schaff  in  the  Nineteenth. "  The  very  term 
"Ubiquity"  betrays  a  Reformed  conception  of  the  subject, 
non-Lutheran  and  foreign  to  the  Formula,  whose  two  relevant 
chapters  treat  only  of  the  two  facts  of  "  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per," and  ''  The  Person  of  Christ." 

MISREPKESENTATIOISr   OF    THE    LUTHERATiT  FAITH. 

We  are  told  that  the  Formula  extends  the  human  body 
of  ( 'hrist  ever^^lere  in  a  geometric  space  and  in  locality, 
whereas  we  teach  that  the  human  body  of  Christ  cannot  be 
omnipresent  by  its  own  nature,  but  has  the  majesty  of  co- 
presence  only  from  the  diviuity,  and  can  be  omnipresent 
only  in  the  divine  mode,  through  the  unity  of  the  person. 


"  Cp.  Seeberg :  "  While  Luther  interprets  the  traditional  dogma  from  the 
view-point  of  personal  unity,  Zwingli  always  premises  the  abstract  difference 
of  the  two  natures.  God  '  assumed  human  nature  ' — the  incarnation  signifies 
nothing  more  than  this  (ii.  2.  69f).  .  .  .  But  for  the  great  thought  in 
Luther's  theology — that  even  the  human  words  and  works  of  Christ  are  a 
revelation  of  God — he  has  no  comprehension.  His  Christolocii/  remains  ab- 
solutely upon  the  plane  of  the  mrdiwi-'al  conceptioyi.  The  divine  and  human 
natures  are  assigned  to  the  opposite  categories  of  finite  and  infinite  nature. 
The  consequences  of  this  position  came  to  light  in  the  controversy  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper." — History  of  Doctrines,   II,   pp.   321,   322. 

**  Oil  is  kept  in  a  lamp  or  vessel.  Its  local  presence  is  in  the  vessel.  The 
oil  is  never  "  locally  extended  in  the  geometric  space  of  the  room  "  even 
when  burning.  But  when  the  higher  nature  of  fire  takes  the  oil  up  into  itself, 
the  presence  of  the  oil.  by  virtue  of  the  higher  attributes  of  the  fire,  is  dif- 
fused everywhere  illocally  as  far  as  the  power  of  the  presence  of  the  fire- 
nature  reaches.  Those  who  misrepresent  the  Lutheran  doctrine  say  that  it 
teaches  that  the  body  of  Christ — f.  p.,  the  oil  in  the  figure,  when  burning — 
extends  itself  locally  throufih  space,  as  the  oil  locally  fills  the  vessel  when 
not  burning.  One  would  not  suppose  that  such  gross  misrepresentation  of 
Lutheranlsm   could   manage   to    live   on    through    the   centuries. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  801 

We  are  told  that  the  Formula  teaches  the  corporeal  aud  local 
presence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  but  we  really  teach  a  cor- 
poreal presence  that  is  not  local.  Our  doctrine  is  misrepre- 
sented. What  stronger  language  could  be  used  than  that  of 
the  Conservative  Reformation  well  known  to  the  author  of 
the  Creeds  of  Christendom :  ''Of  a  local  presence  of  the  body 
of  Christ  in,  with,  or  under  the  bread,  there  never  was  any 
controversy  between  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists ;  that  local 
presence  we  expressly  reject  and  condemn  in  all  our  writings. 
But  a  local  absence  does  not  prevent  a  sacramental  presence, 
which  is  dependent  on  the  communication  of  the  divine 
Majesty."  '* 

In  spite  of  these  words,  the  Creeds  of  Christendom,  '* 
will  persist  in  the  derogatory  use  of  the  term  ubiquity 
with  reference  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  will  insist  that  it  was 
made  a  part  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  in  order  to  support  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  that  it  was  unknown  to  Luther  and  the 
earlier  theologians;  and  that  it  is  a  metaphysical  invention 
of  the  theologians  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  And  this  is 
the  wide-spread  mode  of  stating  Lutheran  doctrine  among 
English  theologians.  Lindsay,  the  Reformation  scholar, 
does  not  grow  weary  of  attributing  a  theory  of  mechanical 
and  local  ubiquity  to  Martin  Luther  himself.  In  his  History 
of  the  German  Reformation  he  misstates  this  fact  no  less 
than  five  times  within  the  space  of  twenty-five  pages.  The 
very  phrases  "  Corporeally  extended  in  space,"  "  Body  ex- 
tended in  space  "  are  quoted  as  if  from  Luther,  yet  nowhere 
is  there  any  citation  added  from  Luther's  works  on  this 
point,  and  for  a  very  good  reason.  The  following  extracts 
show  how  positive,  detailed  and  complete  is  the  misrepresen- 
tation of  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  point. 


"''  Con.  Ref.,  pp.  131,  132. 

"  It  also  similarly  repeats  and  affirms  the  old  falsehood   that  the  Lutheran 
Church   teaches   the   doctrine   of   consubstantiation    in    the    Sacrament. 


802 


THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 


LINDSAY  WOULD  FASTEN  "THE 
UBIQUITY"  ON  THE  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH. 

A.  D.  1906. 

1.  "  Luther  insisted  more  and  mere  on  the 
necessity  of  the  Presence  in  the  elements  of 
the  Body  of  Christ  ^corporeally  extended  tn 
space.'  " — History  of  the  Reforniatio7i,  I, 
p.  356. 

2.  "  Luther  always  conceived  the  Glorified 
Body  of  Christ  as  ^Body  extended  in  space. '  ' ' 
—lb.,  p.  357. 

3.  "Luther's  [theory]  depends  on  a 
questionable  mediaeval  idea  of  ubiquity.'' 
—Ih.,  p.  358. 

4.  "They  met  at  Wittenberg,  and  after 
prolonged  discussion  it  was  found  that  all  were 
agreed  save  on  one  small  point — the  Presence, 
extended  in  space  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  .  . 
.  It  was  agreed  that  this  might  be  left  an 
open  question;  and  what  was  called  the  Wit- 
tenberg Concord  was  signed,  which  united  all 
German  Protestants." — lb.,  p.  377. 

5.  "  Luther's  convent  studies  in  D'Ailly,  Biel,  and  their  common  master, 
William  of  Occam,  enabled  him  to  show  that  there  might  be  the  presence  of  the 
Glorified  Body  of  Christ,  extended  in  space,  in  the  elements  Bread  and  Wine 
in  a  natural  way,  and  without  any  priestly  miracle:  and  that  satisfied  him." — lb., 
p.  354. 


THE  FORMULA  RE- 
JECTS AND  CON- 
DEMNS "THE 
UBIQUITY." 

A.  D.  1580. 

Our  Church '  rejects 
and  condemns  the  error " 
"  that  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  locally  ex- 
tended in  all  places  of 
heaven  and  earth, "  or 
"  has  become  infinite 
essence."  —  Formula  of 
Concord,  (p.  520,  642, 
Jacobs,  in  Book  of  Con- 
cord) . 


What  the  Lutheran  Church  does  teach  is  not  the  infinite 
extension  of  the  body  of  Christ,  but  the  personal  omni- 
presence of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  when  and  as  He 
wills, — and  He  has  willed  it  in  the  Sacrament — under  the 
power  of  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature.  Our  Church 
does  not  teach  that  Christ's  human  nature  is  omnipresent  in 
its  own  right,  as  His  divine  nature  is  omnipresent,  in  virtue 
of  any  property  of  its  own.  ISTor  does  it  teach  that  His 
human  nature  has  been  rendered  equal  to  the  divine  in  its 
essential  properties.  Still  less  does  it  teach  that  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  'locally  expanded  '  in  all  places  of  Heaven 
and  earth.  God  Himself  is  not  present  in  this  manner; 
and  the  mode  of  the  presence  of  the  human  nature,  which, 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  803 

in  union  with  the  divine  nature,  is  under  the  control  of  the 
will  of  Christ,  is  also  not  after  this  manner. 


THE   PERSONAL   OMNIPRESENCE    A  FUNDAMENTAL  FACT. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  omni- 
presence was  first "  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
The  foundations  of  this  doctrine  were  laid  in  Luther's 
teaching,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  in  the  other 
symbols;  and  the  Formula  pointed  out  the  larger  (but  con- 
sistent) development  and  the  central  position  of  this  fact 
in  the  Person  of  Christ. 

Jacobs,  in  discussing  the  statement  in  Valentine's  Chris- 
tian Theology  that  the  Genus  Majestaticum,  "  is  peculiar 
to  Lutheran  dogmaticians,"  points  out  that  the  statement 
is  modified  by  the  author's  own  admission  that  "  its  sub- 
stance was  maintained  by  Luther."  "  The  long  quotation 
from  Luther  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  concerning  the 
different  modes  of  presence  and  the  meaning  of  'the  right 
hand  of  God '  is,  in  fact,"  says  Jacobs,  "  the  chief  part  of  the 
argument  of  that  Confession." 

Forrest,"  resting  on  Bruce  and  Gore,  rises  above  Schaff 
and  Lindsay  in  his  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence,  which  he  characterizes  as  "  illocal,"  but  which  he 
nevertheless  regards  with  a  mechanical  eye,  and  disposes  of 
in  an  epigram  based  on  the  theory  that  Christ  was  not 
omnipresent  or  omniscient  upon  earth.     He  says,  "  The  '  il- 


"  The  tendency  of  the  enemies  to  the  Formula  to  find  and  emphasize  dif- 
ferences between  it  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  natural  and  to  be  expected. 
Such  differences  have  been  "  found  "  in  the  teaching  of  the  two  Confessions  on 
Free  Will.  But,  says  J.  T.  Miiller,  "  In  truth  we  may  call  our  symbols  for- 
tunate that  in  that  their  most  sharp-sighted  opponents  can  find  no  other  con- 
tradictions in  them  than  such  whose  solution  are  also  to  be  found  within 
them.  If  the  Augustana  and  her  Apology  contain  passages  which  are  in  need 
of  a  justifying  explanation,  this  is  given  in  the  later  symbols,  especially  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord.  Therefore  the  Formula  pretends  to  be  nothing  else 
than  an  explanation  of  the  former,  and  an  introduction  to  its  proper  under- 
standing. Such  representations  are  indeed  themselves  only  a  testimony  for 
the  necessity  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  itself." 

"  The   Christ  of  History  ami   of  Experience,   pp.    194,    195. 


804  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

local  iibiquitj '  which  the  Lutherans  attribute  to  His  hu- 
manity is  as  fantastic  as  it  is  incomprehensible."  One  might 
with  equal  propriety  remark  that  the  birth  of  the  Son  of  God 
in  Bethlehem,  or  His  resurrection  from  the  tomb  of  Joseph, 
or  His  ascension  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  is  "  as  fan- 
tastic as  it  is  incomprehensible." 

The  contrast  in  manner  in  which  this  doctrine  is  ap- 
proached on  the  Lutheran  and  on  the  Reformed  and  Philip- 
pist  side  is  marked.  At  times  this  teaching  is  ascribed  to 
Luther  and  his  scholasticism ;  and  again,  it  is  denied  to 
Luther  and  ascribed  to  the  Formula.  By  non-Lutherans  it 
is  regarded  as  a  ridiculous  human  abstraction.  By  our 
Church  it  is  regarded  as  a  divine  and  mysterious  fact  in 
the  Person  of  Christ,  the  crowning,  most  lofty  and  most  real 
act  of  our  Lord  in  His  person  for  us.  Compare  for  in- 
stance, the  reverence,  the  restraint,  and  the  objectivity  shown 
in  Jacobs'  Summary  of  the  Christian  Faith,  and  the  caustic, 
rationalizing  and  almost  flippant  discussion  in  The  Creeds 
of  Christendom. " 

If  this  particular  form  of  the  communication  of  divine 
attributes  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  a  mere  theo- 
logical invention  and  speculation,  and  a  philosophical  ab- 
straction, a  pretext  of  reasoning  to  help  out  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  is  so  constantly  asserted, 
neither  the  writer,  nor  the  Lutlieran  Church,  because  of  her 
doctrine  of  the  Word,  can  have  anything  to  do  with  it. 
But  if  the  mysteries  of  the  Incarnation,  the  Redemption,  and 
the  Glorification  of  Christ,  are  not  also  mere  philosophic 
figments,  and  human  inventions,  but  are  the  great  and  ulti- 
mate facts  of  history,  imperfectly  comprehensible  by  our 
poor  human  reasoning,  then  this  particular  fact  of  the 
genus   majestaticum,   that   inheres   in   the   Incarnation   and 


^s  This  is  one  of  the  few  places  in  the  Creeds  of  Christendom  In  which 
Schaff  descends  from  the  symbolic  standpoint  to  argue  at  length,  and  as  a 
particular  member  of  the  Reformed  Church,  against  a  particular  doctrine  :  and 
^0  does  it  in  a  way  which  seems  to  show  his  intention  of  giving  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  a  death  blow. 


THE    PERSON    OF    CII R J S T .  805 

Glorification  of  Christ,  is  also  not  a  philosophical  figment, 
but  an  adorable  mystery."' 


THE   MOST   POTENT   OBJECTION. 

The  most  potent  argument  that  is  advanced  by  the  Re- 
formed and  the  weaker  Lutherans  against  the  genus  majes- 
taticum  is  the  rationalistic  one,  viz. :  that  it  cannot  he  true, 
for  it  is  contrary  to  Jiunuin  reason,  and  human  reason  can- 
not comprehend  it.  Thus  Schaff  says,  "  How  can  eter- 
nity ...  be  really  communicated  to  a  being  born  in 
time  .  .   .    ?     How  can  immensitv  be  transferred  to  a  finite 


man 


•}  '' 


And  Valentine  says,  "It  is  impossible  to  conceive  how 
the  divine  properties  could  be  given  to  the  human  nature,  as 
real  attributes,  without  making  it  something  else  or  other 
than  human  nature.  .  It  is  the  essence  of  human  nature  to 
be  finite;  to  add  to  it  omnipresence  is,  to  the  necessities  of 
scientific  thought,  to  constitute  it  per  se  infinitely  beyond 
the  self-identity  of  human  nature."  " 

This  same  argument  of  transcendence  beyond  the  bounds 
of  what  is  possible  to  human  thought,  can  be  directed,  if  it 


'3»  Everything  that  the  Saviour  did  and  suffered  Is  both  divine  and  human, 
that  is,  it  is  personal.  He  did,  and  suffered  all,  and  He  is  both  human  and 
divine.  Every  act,  indeed,  is  done,  every  suffering  endured,  through  or  hy 
the  one  or  the  other  nature,  but  not  without  the  personal  presence  of  the 
other.  Jesus  Christ  wrought  miracles  through  the  divine  nature,  but  they 
were  wrought  hy  the  human  nature.  Through  His  divine  omnipotence  sight 
was  given  to  the  blind,  but  His  divine  omnipotence  wrought  it  by  His  human 
touch.  Jesus  Christ  died  according  to  His  human  nature,  but  His  death 
was  the  death  of  a  divine  person.  Through  His  human  infirmity  He  was 
crucified,  but  that  human  weakness  wrought  hy  His  divine  majesty  an  in- 
finite sacrifice.  Godhead  cannot  bleed,  but  the  Church  is  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  God  ;  for  He  who  bleeds  Is  in  one  inseparable  person,  God  as  well  as 
man,  and  His  blood  has  efficacy,  not  because  of  the  properties  of  the  nature 
according  to  which  He  bleeds,  but  because  of  the  attributes  of  His  whole 
person,  which  is  divine.  Had  not  He  who  bled  been  personally  God  as  well 
as  man.  His  blood  would  not  have  availed.  Jesus  Christ  is  essentially  and 
necessarily  omnipresent  according  to  the  divine  nature,  but  His  human  nature 
not  of  its  own  essence,  or  by  a  necessity  resulting  from  its  own  attributes, 
but  because  the  divine  has  taken  it  into  personal  union  with  Itself,  is 
rendered   present  through   the   divine. — Con.   Ref.   pp.   476    and   477. 

'■•  Creeds  of  Christendom,  p.  324. 

'*  Christian  Theology,  11.,  p.  77. 


80G  THE    LUTHERAN    C 0 X F E F^  S 1 0 N S. 

be  valid,  with  fatal  force,  against  the  whole  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation,  the  Redemption  and  the  Glorification  of  Christ. 
The  genus  majestaticum  is  a  specific  fact  in  the  general 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ.  This 
union  of  the  finite  with  the  infinite,  which  is  the  greatest 
fact  of  revelation,  is  as  incomprehensible,  as  to  its  possi- 
bility, as  is  the  particular  fact  which  is  a  part  of  it,  which 
we  term  the  genus  majestaticum. 

It  is,  however,  admitted  by  Valentine  that  if  the  com- 
munication of  the  divine  attributes  to  the  human  nature  be 
viewed  as  "  functional,"  the  mild  and  careful  confession 
of  the  doctrine  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  can  be  accepted : 
"  Interpreted  in  this,  its  true  light  or  sense,  it  is  really  only 
a  necessary  explication  and  issue  of  the  functional  action 
taught  in  the  second  kind  of  communication,  arising  from 
the  real  personal  union.  .  .  Looked  at  in  this  light,  this  kind 
of  communication  surely  belongs  to  a  full  Christological 
view.  .  .  This  gives  all  that  is  necessary  to  a  correct  view  of 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Supper."  " 

This  functional  action  in  the  communio  "  gives  all  that  is 
necessary  "  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  but  has  nothing 
to  spare  for  the  majesty  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  on  the 
ground  that  "  Melanehthon  did  not  accept  the  idea  of  a  real 
communication  of  the  divine  attributes."  '* 


THE    CRITIQUE    OF    SCIIAFF. 

But  the  Reformed  critique  of  this  doctrine,  as  repre- 
sented by  Schaff,  without  entering  into  the  mystery  of 
Christ  at  all,  presumes  to  judge  it  from  an  external  and 
speculative  point  of  view.  The  very  first  statement  of 
Schaif,  which  he  supports  by  a  quotation  from  Stahl,  is  as 
follows :  "  The  scholastic  refinements  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Communicatio   Idiomatum,    and   especially   the   ubiquity   of 

"  Christian  Theology,  II,   pp.   79-80. 


TEE   PERSON    OF    CHRIST.  807 

the  body,  have  no  intrinsic  religious  importance,  and  owe 
their  origin  to  the  Lutheran  hypothesis  of  the  corporeal  pres- 
ence. They  should,  therefore,  never  have  been  made  an 
article  of  faith.  A  surplus  of  orthodoxy  provokes  skepti- 
cism." 

If  a  rationalistic  approach  such  as  this  were  made  to  the 
doctrine  of  Predestination,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  to  certain  Presbyterian  doctrines  connected  with  the 
organization  of  the  Church,  they  might  be  read  out  of  court 
in  statements  as  curt  as  these. 

In  proceeding  to  show  that  the  Formula  overstates  and 
endangers  the  '^  central  mystery  of  the  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  in  Christ,"  Schaif  declares,  ''  It  leads  neces- 
sarily— notwithstanding  the  solemn  protest  of  the  Formula 
to  a  Eutychian  confusion  and  equation  of  natures;  for, 
according  to  all  sound  pJiilosophy,  the  attributes  are  not  an 
outside  appendix  to  the  nature,  and  independent  of  it,  but 
inherent  qualities,  and  together  constitute  the  nature  itself." 

Schaff's  first  objection,  then,  is  that  the  doctrine  has  no 
religious  value;  his  second  objection  is  that  it  is  condemned 
by  ''all  sound  philosophy,"  that  is,  by  human  reason.  His 
third  objection  is  that  the  doctrine  breaks  down  half  way, 
and  cannot  be  carried  consistently  through  all  the  attributes. 
This  is  likewise  an  objection  of  the  human  reason.  His 
fourth  objection  is  that  the  doctrine  has  no  support  in  the 
Scriptures.  In  reply  to  this  we  would  say  that  nearly  all 
the  Scriptures  which  describe  to  us  the  manifestation  of 
the  divine  nature  in  the  human  are  a  proof  of  this  doctrine; 
not  merely  such  general  passages  as  Matt.,  11:  27;  28:  18; 
John,  5:  26;  but  Heb.,  2:8;  Col.,  2:3;  John,  6:  51;  I 
Cor.,  15:  45;  Matt.,  9:  6;  John,  5 :  27 ;  Phil.,  2:  9,  10; 
Heb.,  1:8;  Matt.,  18  :  20  ;  28  :  20  ;  Eph.,  1 :  23  ;  4 :  10 ;  Heb., 
1:3;  Heb.,  2:9;  Luke,  22 :  69 ;  I  John,  1:7;  John,  17 :  5. 

The  fifth  objection  of  Schaff,  namely,  "  The  Christology 
of  the  Formula  makes  it  impossible  to  construct  a  truly 
human  life  of  our  Lord  on  earth,"  is  also  an  objection  of 


808  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

pure  rationalism.  It  is  not  so  important  for  us  to  be  able 
"to  construct  a  truly  human  life  of  our  Lord "  as  it  is 
to  accept  the  fact  that  God  "  constructed  "  such  a  life,  and  to 
believe  in  it  whether  we  understand  it  or  not.  As  for  the 
"  construction,"  we  should  remember  the  words  of  the  For- 
mula, "it  shines  forth  .  .   .  when  and  as  Christ  wills." 

No  time  need  be  wasted  on  the  sixth  objection  of  Schaff, 
which  is  illustrative,  nor  on  the  seventh,  which  attributes 
"  consubstantiation "  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  de- 
clares that  the  ubiquity  of  the  body  is  "  logically  necessary 
for  consubstantiation."  The  eighth  objection  is  puerile,  de- 
claring that  "  ubiquity  proves  too  much  by  extending  the 
eating  of  Christ  to  every  meal."  Christ  did  not  quicken 
every  dead  man  to  life,  nor  forgive  every  paralytic  his  sins, 
nor  heal  every  blind  man  he  saw,  neither  is  his  "  ubiquity" 
a  mere  mechanical  category,  which  affects  all  objects  auto- 
matically, and  in  which  we  are,  as  we  are  in  space  and  time; 
but  it  is  under  the  control  of  Christ's  will,  and  shines  "  forth 
when  and  as  he  wills." 

The  ninth  objection  of  Schaff  borders  on  the  absurd.  It 
is  tliat  the  ubiquity  ''  conflicts  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  local 
limitations  while  on  earth."  As  thus  conceived  by  these 
rationalistic  philosophers,  the  ubiquity  indeed  would  be  a 
terrible  burden,  a  fearful  punishment  of  fate,  under  which 
even  the  Christ  of  God  could  not  hold  himself  erect  on 
earth,  and  which  would  certainly  be  a  barrier  and  obstruction 
to  his  freedom  at  the  Right  Hand  of  the  Father.  They  so 
distort  the  ubiquity  mechanically  as  that  it  rules  the  Person 
and  the  Will.  The  Lutheran  Church  places  this  Communi- 
cation of  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  human 
in  proper  control  of  the  Person  and  Will  of  Christ. 

The  tenth  reason  of  Schaff  is  perhaps  the  real,  at  least  the 
real  historical,  reason  why  the  doctrine  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  has  been  fought  so  terribly.  It  is  that  if  this 
doctrine  be  true,  it  requires  the  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  and  would  dispose  of  the 


THE   PERSOX    OF   CHRIST.  809 

Zwingliaii  and  Calvinistic  interpretation  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 

Thus  is  the  central  position  of  the  Formula  in  the  evan- 
gelical faith,  and  the  central  doctrine  of  the  Formula,  which 
upholds  the  central  fact  in  the  Person  of  Christ ;  as  acknowl- 
edged, in  all  the  greatness  of  its  mystery,  by  the  Lutheran 
Church,  brought  out  as  the  real  reason  for  the  rejection  of 
the  Formula.  And  thus  is  the  impossibility  of  union  on 
the  part  of  a  real  Lutheranism  with  Reformed  Protestantism 
set  forth  in  extenso,  by  the  founder  of  the  Evangelical  Alli- 
ance. 

INCONSISTENCY    OF    CRITICS    OF    THE 

Those  who  see  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  a  philosophical  theory  of  ubiquity,  instead  of  a 
Christian  mystery,  seem  not  to  realize  that  they  themselves 
have  lost  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  because 
they  are  resting  upon  a  shallow  philosophical  theory  of  the 
Person  of  Christ.  This  fundamental  distinction  could  not 
but  come  out  most  sharply  every  time  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
discussed,  beginning  at  Marburg  in  1529 ;  and  continuing 
even  when  Calvin's  view,  later,  was  substituted  for  that  of 
Zwingli. 

For  a  true  presence  of  Christ  on  earth,  so  possible  to  the 
glorified  Son  of  Man,  the  Calvinistic  view  substitutes  "  an 
imaginary  presence  of  the  believers  in  Heaven,"  so  impossi- 
ble as  an  actual  reality.  The  Calvinistic  view  "  puts  too 
much  upon  man  who  is  nothing,  because  it  concedes  too  little 
to  Christ  who  is  everything  .  .  .  With  its  great  ad- 
vance on  the  rationalism  of  Zwingli,  the  doctrine  of  Calvin 
still  bore  with  it  the  fatal  taint  of  the  very  view  which  he 
calls  '  profane.'  All  that  Calvin  gained  in  depth,  as  con- 
trasted with  Zwingli,  he  lost  in  clearness.  He  does  not  as 
flatly  as  Zwingli  contradict  the  text.  But  he  does  what 
Zwingli  did  not,  he  contradicts  himself.     But  two  views  will 


810  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

remain  in  the  ultimate  struggle,  the  rationalistic,  Zwinglian, 
Arminian,  Socinian  view,  which  fully  denies  the  whole  mys- 
tery, on  the  one  side,  and  the  Scriptural,  Catholic  view, 
which  fully  and  consistently  recognizes  it  on  the  other. 
This  is  the  view  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  presence  held 
in  its  purity  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  held  in  the  Roman 
and  Greek  churches,  though  with  the  rubbish  of  human 
additions  heaped  upon  it.  The  advance  of  either  view 
presses  out  the  Calvinistic  .  .  .  The  rigid  logic  which  so 
wonderfully  marks  Calvin,  in  the  other  parts  of  his 
system, "  seems  to  fail  him  here.  His  sacramental  theories 
were  an  adaptation  of  the  views  of  Bucer,  which  their  orig- 
inator ultimately  abandoned  for  those  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  They  were  grafted  on  Calvin's  system,  not  grown 
by  it,  and  they  fall  away  even  when  the  trunk  retains  its 
original  vigor,  or  are  retained,  as  the  Unionistic  theology, 
though  with  great  changes,  now  retains  them,  when  every- 
thing ordinarily  embraced  in  Calvinism,  is  utterly  aban- 
doned." '" 

The  most  savage  assaults  upon  the  Formula  of  Concord 
made  by-  Reformed  and  Philippist  are  due  to  its  teaching 
that  the  human  nature  in  Christ  has  received  the  divine 
majesty  according  to  the  manner  of  the  personal  union,  so 
that,  as  the  Formula  says,  "  The  entire  fulness  of  the  divin- 
ity dwells  in  Christ,  not  as  in  other  holy  men  and  angels, 
but  bodily,  as  in  its  own  body,  so  that,  with  all  its  majesty, 
power,  glory  and  efficacy,  it  shines  forth  in  the  assumed 
human  nature  of  Christ  when  and  as  he  wills,  and  in,  with, 
and  through  it,  exerts  its  divine  power,  glory,  and  efficacy." 


"  But  cp.  Prof.  Thomas  C.  Hall  of  Union  Seminary,  New  York,  who  says, 
"  The  ethical  system  of  Calvin  is  profoundly  reactionary,  scholastic,  and 
Roman  Catholic  in  both  method  and  aim.  As  a  religious  force  of  the  first 
magnitude  Calvinism  has  aided  in  high  degree  men's  practical  ethical  life.  .  .  . 
But  on  the  intellectual  and  philosophical  reconstruction  of  ethics  it  has  left  no 
such  mark  as  that  made  by  one  single  work  of  Luther's,  Die  Freiheit  dea 
Christenmenschen." 

"  Con.    Ref.,   pp.    499,    501. 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  811 

THE    COMMUNICATIO    IDIOMATUM    ORIGIJSTATKD    Ilf    SCRIPTUKE, 
NOT    IN    THE    FORMULA. 

This  confession,  instead  of  being  merely  a  doctrine  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  the  doctrine  taught  in  Scripture, 
and  did  not  originate  in  the  necessity  of  defending  the  Luth- 
eran doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  The  doctrine  of  our 
Church  rests  upon  the  true  testimony  of  God's  Word,  and  her 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  that  Word  is  not  one  of  her 
own  devising,  but  had  been  given  ages  before  her  great 
distinctive  Confession  by  the  fathers  and  Councils  of  the 
pure  Church."  '° 

We  have  seen  that  Luther  drew  the  communicatio  idio- 
matum  from  his  profound  knowledge  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  as  found  in  Scripture.  Its  origin  is  in  Scripture, 
not  in  the  Formula.  John,  who  tells  us  that  the  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  w;e  beheld  His  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the 
Onlj^-begotten  of  the  Father,  presents  to  us  the  communica- 
tion of  attributes.  Christ  Himself  teaches  this  doctrine  in 
John,  3:  35;  Matt,  11:  27;  Luke,  10:  22;  and  John,  13:  3. 
One  of  the  most  striking  of  all  contrasts  between  the  two 
natures  in  the  one  Person  is  this :  "  Jesus  knowing  that  the 
Father  had  given  all  things  into  his  hands,  and  that  he  was 
come  from  God,  and  went  to  God;  he  riseth  from  sup- 
per .  .  .  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet."  And 
here  the  whole  point  of  the  antithesis  between  luhat  Christ 
was,  and  what  He  did,  turns  upon  the  communicatio. 
"  That  Jesus  performed  this  act  of  touching  lowliness  not 
in  forgetfulness  of  His  glorious  majesty  and  of  the  plenitude 
of  His  gifts,  but  fully  conscious  of  them  "  is  the  point  of 
the  narrative.  But  if  he  had  "  all  things "  given  unto 
Him  as  a  man,  as  in  the  consciousness  of  this  glory.  He 
washed  the  disciples'  feet,  then  was  there  real  humiliation.  " 
In  Him,  Who  had  power  to  lay  down  His  life  and  power  to 


"  Con.  Ref.,  p.  502. 

'"For  the  discussion   of  Matt.    28:18;   Matt.   28:20;    John    17:5;    Col.    2:9; 
Matt.  17  :  25,  etc.,  vid.  Con.  Ref.,  pp.   502-508. 


812  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

take  it  up  again,  Who  offered  Himself  a  ransom  for  many, 
Who  gave  His  body  and  His  blood  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
Who  rose  from  the  dead  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  yet  with 
the  nail-prints  upon  Him ;  Who  is  with  His  disciples  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world,  the  human  nature  as  the  per- 
sonalized organ  of  the  divine  nature,  experiences,  enjoys  and 
uses,  according  to  the  wisdom  of  His  own  will,  the  attributes 
of  the  divine  nature,  whether  He  be  on  the  Mount,  upon 
the  Cross  or  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  "  So  thor- 
oughly," says  Krauth,  ''  does  this  idea  of  the  personal  unity 
underlie  the  New  Testament  conception  of  Christ,  that  we 
find  it  constantly  assumed  where  no  formal  statement  of  it 
is  made." 


THE    ANCIENT     CREEDS. 

The  Apostles'  Creed  teaches  the  communicatio  idiomatum 
when  it  declares  that  God's  ''  only  Son,  our  Lord,"  was  con- 
ceived, born,  suffered,  crucified,  dead,  buried,  descended  into 
hell,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father  Almighty."  If  God's  Son  was  really  co7iceived 
and  boi'ji,  and  suffered,  "  if  He  whom  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain,  was  hidden  in  the  grave,"  there  was  in  the 
whole  earthly  life  of  Christ  a  communication  of  natures  in 
their  attributes. 

The  Nicene  Creed  states  the  communication  of  attributes 
in  the  one  Person  Avith  great  clearness.  "The  only  begotten, 
the  Eternal  Son,  Maker  of  all  things,  descends  from  heaven, 
is  made  man,  is  crucified,  suffers.  He  is  one  Person,  to 
whom  is  referred  all  the  glory  that  is  divine,  and  all  the 
shame  and  pain  that  are  human.  The  Athanasian  Creed 
witnesses  still  further:  Though  He  be  God  and  man,  He  is 
not  two,  but  one  Christ — one,  not  by  the  conversion  of 
Divinity  into  flesh,  but  by  the  assumption  of  humanity  to 
God ;  one  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but 
bv  unity  of  Person.     For  as  the  rational  soul  and  flesh  is 


THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  813 

one  man,  ko  God  and  man  is  one  Christ,  who  (God  and  man, 
one  Christ)  ^suffered  for  our  salvation,  descended  into  hell, 
rose  the  third  day.'  The  Augsburg  Confession  takes  up 
this  thread  of  witness :  '  God  the  Son  became  man,  so  that 
there  be  two  natures,  the  divine  and  human,  in  unity  of 
person  inseparably  conjoined,  one  Christ,  truly  God  and 
truly  man,  who  was  born,  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead 
and  buried.'  "  " 


THE    CHURCH     FATHERS. 

The  participation  of  attributes  in  Christ  in  the  sense  of 
the  genus  majestaticum  passed  from  Scripture  to  the  wider 
territory  of  the  Church  Fathers.  Was  it  the  Formula  of 
Concord  that  said,  "As  the  Son  of  God  has  been  made 
participant  of  flesh  and  blood,  so  the  human  flesh  of  our  Lord 
has  been  made  participant  of  Deity  ?"  Xo,  it  was  St. 
Basil,  who  also  says,  "  When  our  Lord  declares  '  All  power 
is  given  unto  me,'  the  words  are  to  be  understood  of  Him 
in  His  incarnation,  not  in  His  Deity."  " 

Was  it  the  Formula  that  said,  "  Christ  according  to  His 
humanity  shares  the  throne  of  God,"  or  "  Thou  art  every- 
where, and  standing  in  our  midst  art  not  perceived  by  us," 
or  "  One  Christ  is  everywhere ;  here  existing  complete,  and 
there  complete  ?"  ^^  'No,  it  was  Ambrose.  Was  it  the  For- 
mula that  said,  "  He  is  wherever  He  wills  to  be ;  wheresoever 
He  is,  He  is  entire  "  ?  No,  it  was  Chrysostom.  Was  it  the 
Formula  that  said,  "  The  holy  body  of  Christ  ...  is  com- 
municated in  the  four  parts  of  the  world  .  .  .  He  exists  en- 
tire and  undivided  in  all  everywhere  "  ?  No,  it  was  Theophy- 
lact.^*    It  was  Jerome  who  said,'^  "  The  Lamb  is  everywhere." 


«  Con,  Ref.,  316-317. 

**Basilius   in    Homil.    de   Nativ.    Christi. 

^■'  Ambrose  on  Luke  X,  Lib.  VII,  ch.  47,  and  on  Heb.  IV. 

"Theophyl.,    on    Eph.    IV,    10. 

^  Adv.  Vigilantixim, 

55 


814  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

This  confession  was  not  an  invention  of  the  Formula.  It  was 
confessed  by  the  Formula  because  it  was  confessed  by  Luther. 
It  was  confessed  by  Luther  after  it  was  confessed  by  the 
Ancient  Church,  and  because  both  Luther  and  the  Church 
Fathers  found  it  taught  in  Scrij^ture  itself. 

The  real  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ 
in  the  Formula  was  the  rationalistic  Christology  of  Zwingli, 
which  he  accepted  from  the  schoolmen  of  Rome,  which  at- 
tempts to  limit  and  confess  Christ  in  the  forms  of  common 
sense  and  the  human  mind;  and  which  was  artificial  just  as 
the  Roman  doctrine  of  justification  is  shallow;  but  which  has 
passed  into  the  teaching  of  Reformed  Protestantism. '° 

If  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Reformed  Church,  through 
Zwingli,  retained  the  rationalistic  view  of  the  natures  of 
Christ  as  an  heirloom  from  Rome,  it  will  be  understood 
why  the  Reformed,  the  rationalist,  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
have  joined  hands  to  extinguish  the  truth  of  the  Formula. 

This  truth  is  the  inner  citadel  of  our  Faith  in  Christ  our 
Redeemer,  and  it  is  confessed,  used  and  enjoyed  in  every 


**  Seeberg  speaks  even  more  sharply  of  Zwingli's  theology  as  follows :  "  His 
Christology  has  the  Nestorian  tendency  of  the  Scholastics.  His  interpreta- 
tion of  original  sin  harmonizes  with  that  of  the  later  Middle  Ages.  His 
theory  of  the  sacraments  follows  the  symbolic  view  not  infrequently  held  In 
the  Middle  Ages.  He  mingles  philosophical  theories  with  his  presentations 
of  the  gospel,  lacking  Luther's  sense  of  the  positive  character  of-  revelation- 
Duns  and  the  Nominalists  having  here  prepared  the  way.  Thus  Christianity 
became  a  kind  of  philosophy  deduced  from  the  Bible.  In  view  of  these 
characteristics  of  his  teaching,  it  may  be  said  that  the  imdeniable  difference 
between  Zwingli  and  Luther — despite  their  common  understanding  of  the 
gospel — is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact,  that  Zwingli  received  his  impulse 
originally  from  the  Erasmian  illuministic  tendency,  and  that,  in  consequence, 
the  medieval  ideas  continued  to  exert  a  greater  influence  upon  him  than 
upon    Luther." — II,    p.    317. 

"  Zwingli  was  from  the  first  conscious  of  the  deviation  of  his  ideas  from 
thoto  of  Luther,  which  explains  in  part  the  zealous  assertions  of  his  (sup- 
posed) independence  of  the  Saxon  reformer.  If  he  at  first,  indeed,  represented 
this  difference  as  a  merely  formal  one,  though  emphasizing  the  idea  of  a 
repeated  memorial  (Wiedergedachtniss,  i.  257).  yet  he  very  soon  resolved  to 
as-t-ail  the  theory  of  Luther,  and  from  the  year  1525  built  up  a  carefully 
planned  and  vigorous  propaganda  for  the  purpose  of  winning  the  Southern 
Germans  to  his  views.  .  .  .  There  was  a  feeling  of  strong  confidence  that 
Luther's  view  could  be  explained  away  as  simply  the  product  of  hypocrisy  and 
timidity  (e.  g.,  vii.  390  f).  Zwingli  and  his  friends  were  impatient  in  their 
desire  to  measure  swords  with  Luther  and  undermine  his  authority,  and 
lounsrled  against  the  use  of  prudent  or  pious  tactics  iu  dealing  with  him." — 
lb.   I,   p.   319. 


THE   PERSON    OF   CHRIST.  815 

celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  '^  constantly  recalls 
the  minds  of  those  who  use  it  aright  to  the  most  central  facts 
and  truths  of  Christianity.  In  the  light  of  this  Holy  Sac- 
rament, the  proper  relation  between "  the  human  and  the 
divine,  God  and  man,  sin  and  redemption,  "  is  set  forth  and 
maintained.  The  words  of  the  Gospel  which  it  brings  and 
seals  to  the  individual,  every  time  he  communes,  condense 
all  that  is  taught  in  both  Old  and  New  Testament.  It  is  an 
impressive  summary  of  God's  entire  revelation  of  Himself 
to  man.  It  fixes  the  lines  along  which  faith  moves  and  ac- 
cording to  which  it  works  .  .  .  ISTor  is  its  testimony  confined 
to  communicants.  It  shows  forth  the  Lord's  death  and  all 
that  it  means  to  those  as  yet  outside  the  Church.  Without 
interruption,  it  has  come  down  from  a  period  before  men 
could  read  the  message  of  the  Gospel  in  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  even  before  its  very  first  book  was  written, 
and  through  all  these  ages  it  gave  the  very  same  testimony 
as  it  is  giving  to-day."  ' 

If  our  faith  holds  and  clings  to  the  living  Christ,  and  is 
not  content  with  abstract  dogma  deduced  from  the  mere  ideas 
of  a  philosophizing  Christianity,  if  we  know  that  our 
mighty  and  merciful  Redeemer  touches  God  at  every  point  in 
the  heights  of  heaven  and  touches  our  fallen  nature  at  every 
point  in  the  depths  of  humiliation ;  if  we  know  that  He  is  the 
potent,  compassionate,  and  glorious  Mediator,  reaching  out 
to  us  with  His  flesh  and  blood,  after  the  manner  of  the  hu- 
man, and  reaching  up  into  the  eternal  life  and  equality  of 
His  Father  in  His  divinely  begotten  and  eternal  nature;  if 
we  believe  that  he  has  poured  out  divine  powers  and  treas- 
ures of  redemption  through  the  human  vessels  of  His  own 
body  and  blood,  and  if  we  believe  that  these  vessels  in  their 
union  with  the  divine  have  become  transfigured  under  its  in- 
fluence ;  if  He,  the  Mediator  is  a  reality,  is  a  unit  in  person- 
ality, a  single  entity  in  the  fullness  of  His  own  life,  far  be- 


*'  Jacobs,   Summary   of   Christian   Faith,  p.    366-367. 


8ir,  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

yond  anything  which  it  hath  entered  the  mind  of  man  to 
conceive,  then  how  can  we  be  so  shallow  as  to  empty  the  sac- 
ramental mystery  of  His  bodily  life  broken  for  our  sin,  of  all 
its  reality,  and  as  to  deprive  His  o^vn  Church  of  the  one 
great  standing  miracle  of  the  real  presence  of  His  living  and 
saving  Person,  unconfused  but  also  undivided. 

Well  does  the  Formula  of  Concord  close  its  wonderful  de- 
fence of  our  Lord's  Person  with  the  following  words: 

"  We  would  exhort  all  devout  people  not  to  attempt  to 
scrutinize  this  deep  mystery  with  the  curious  search  of 
human  reason,  but  rather  with  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord 
to  exercise  a  simple  faith,  closing  the  eyes  of  human  reason, 
and  bringing  every  thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience 
of  Christ.  But  most  sweet,  most  firm  consolation,  and  per- 
petual joy  may  they  seek  in  the  truth  that  our  flesh  is  placed 
so  high,  even  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  of  God,  and  of 
His  almighty  power.  Thus  shall  they  find  abiding  conso- 
lation in  every  sorrow,  and  be  kept  safe  from  every  hurtful 
error." 


CHAPTER   XXXIV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

CONCOKDIA  IS  THE  CHURCH'S  GREAT  CONFES- 
SION OF  CHRIST. 

The  Material  of  Concordia — Its  Field  is  Salvation — Its  Subject  is  Christ — The 
Church  should  never  Go  Back  to  the  Concordia;  but  should  Stand  Upon  It — It 
treats  Other  Doctrines,  but  substantially  it  is  the  Great  Confession  of  the  Person 
and  Work  of  Christ. 

SHOULD  our  Concordia  be  the  Confession,  as  is  the 
Augustana,  of  the  whole  Conservative  Evangelical 
Church?  Its  material  is  that  of  the  Augustana,  which  it 
raises  to  clean,  sharp  outline  and  more  ample  clearness.  It 
eliminates  the  more  earthly  and  temporal  elements  found  in 
the  Augustana,  the  Apology,  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles. 
It  focuses  all  the  rays  of  Scripture  truth  on  the  field  of 
salvation.  It  concentrates  the  whole  Lutheran  Confession 
upon  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  It  confesses  a 
Christ  Who  assumed  our  human  nature  into  the  unity  of 
His  divine  person,  that  He  might  be  our  high  priest  for  our 
reconciliation  with  God ;  and  Who,  possessing  the  majesty 
and  power  of  God  according  to  the  personal  union,  abstained 
from  it  in  humbling  Himself,  and  grew  in  all  wisdom  and 
favor  with  God  and  man ;  Who  exercised  this  majesty,  not 
always,  but  when  it  pleased  Him,  until,  after  His  resur- 
rection. He  laid  aside  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  not  the 
nature,  and  resumed  the  use,  manifestation  and  declara- 
tion of  His  own  majesty  and  thus  entered  into  His  glory, 
80  that  now  not  only  as  God,  but  also  as  man,  He  knows  all 

817 


818  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

things,  is  present  with  all  creatures,  and  has,  under  His  feet 
and  in  His  hands,  everything  that  is  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 

Present  in  His  whole  Person  by  His  divine  nature  with 
His  Church  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  He  is  also  sacra- 
mentally  present  with  His  Church  in  His  human  nature, 
according  to  the  property  of  the  divine  nature,  to  impart 
and  seal  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  life  and  salvation  to  each 
believer.  This  presence  of  the  exalted  Christ  is  not  of  the 
earth,  or  physical,  or  Capernaitic.  Yet  it  is  true  and  sub- 
stantial, as  He  declares  in  His  Testament,  "  This  is  my 
body." 

In  His  incarnation,  atonement,  resurrection,  ascension  and 
impartation  of  redemption  to  each  believer,  the  Person  of 
Christ  is  not  divided.  Neither  are  the  natures  together 
with  their  properties  confounded;  neither  is  either  creature 
changed  into  the  other;  but  Christ  is  and  remains,  for  all 
eternity,  God  and  man  in  one  undivided  person,  upon  which 
mystery  our  only  consolation,  life  and  salvation  depend. 

This  then  is  the  sublime  Confession,  clear  and  Scriptural, 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  On  its  presentation,  preserva- 
tion and  protection  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
in  which  it  stands  preeminent  and  unapproachable,  even  as 
the  Jungfrau  towers  in  her  soaring  height  above  the  whole 
circle  of  her  surrounding  sisters,  the  Formula  of  Concord 
may  rest  its  case  as  to  whether  it  is  and  is  entitled  to  be 
acknowledged  as  the  Symbol  of  the  Lutheran  Faith,  and 
the  culminating  Confession  of  the  whole  Lutheran  Church; 
and  whether  it  is  to  be  thankfully  accepted  by  those  who  bear 
the  name  of  Luther  and  who  follow  Him  in  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament. 

It  is  true  that  the  Church  of  this  day  will  never  go  back 
to  the  Sixteenth  Century  or  to  the  Formula  of  Concord. 
Neither  can  it  go  back  to  the  Confession  of  Augsburg;  and 
still  less  should  it  go  back  to  the  New  Testament  of  Christ. 
But  only  by  occupying  and  standing  fully  on  the  sure  ground 
of  the  past  will  it  be  able  to  build  upward  to  the  true  pin- 


TEE    CONCOBDIA.  819 

nacle  of  the  future.     A  deviation  very  slight  at  the  start 
results  in  a  leaning  tower  at  the  top. 

It  is  trne  that  the  Concordia  includes  more  than  the  Per- 
son of  Christ,  as  the  Angustana  contains  more  than  the  mate- 
rial principle  of  the  Reformation.  Thus  it  settles  the  prin- 
ciple of  things  more  and  things  less  important  in  the  Chris- 
tian Faith,  the  later  form  which  the  controversy  with 
Rome  took,  and  which  brought  the  Lutheran  states  un- 
der the  control  of  the  emperor  and  the  Roman  Church.  * 
It  takes  up  the  Article  of  Predestination,  which  in  Lutheran 
Theology  conies  after  and  not  before  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ. '  But  while  such  Loci  as  are  found  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  are  treated  in  view  of  the  fifty  year's' 
experience  since  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  the  crowning 
distinction  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  that  it  is  the 
Confession  of  the  Work  and  the  Person  of  Christ — the  Work 
as  we  find  it  in  saving  the  lost,  the  Person  as  the  back- 
ground and  explanation  of  that  salvation.  The  Formula  of 
Concord  is  not,  like  the  Augsburg  Confession,  ecclesiastical 
or  reformatory  in  its  treatment:  it  is  wholly  soteriological. 
It  contains  no  article,  like  the  Augsburg  Confession,  on  the 
Church,  none  on  Civil  Affairs,  none  on  Abuses,  none  on 


*  The  emperor  requested  the  Protestants  to  submit  to  compromise  pending 
the  call  to  a  Council.  The  Augsburg  Interim  (1548)  was  the  first  com- 
promise. It  was  wholly  in  favor  of  Rome,  giving  to  the  Protestants  only  the 
cup  to  the  laity  and  the  marriage  of  priests.  In  south  Germany  about  four 
hundred  Lutheran  preachers  were  expelled  or  dismissed  for  non-conformity- 
Six  months  later  came  the  second  compromise,  the  Leipzig  Interim,  for 
the  domain  of  Maurice  of  Saxony,  of  treacherous  memory,  where  the  Augsburg 
Interim  could  not  be  carried  out.  It  retained  some  parts  of  the  evangelical 
faith,  but  required  conformity  to  the  Romish  ritual,  including  confirmation, 
episcopal  ordination,  extreme  unction,  a  large  part  of  the  mass,  fasts,  proces- 
sions, and  the  use  of  images.  Melanchthon,  here  as  originally  at  Augsburg 
and  ever  after,  compromising,  acted  as  mediator  between  Protestantism  and 
Maurice. 

The  Formula  in  settling  this  subject,  lays  down  the  principle  that  ec- 
clesiastical rites  not  commanded  in  the  Word  of  God  are  in  themselve.s 
adiaphora  ;  but  '  the  observance  or  non-observance  of  them  may,  under  testing 
circumstances  become  a  matter  of  principle   and   of  conscience.* 

^  The  now  famous  article  on  Predestination  is  introduced  by  the  following 
paragraph,  which  shows  most  clearly  the  confessional  intention  and  char- 
acter of  the  Formula :  "  Concerning  this  article  no  public  discussion  has 
occurred  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  But  since  It  is 
a  consolatory  article,  if  treated  properly,  and  by  this  means  the  introduction 
in  the  future  of  a  controvprsy  likely  to  cause  offence  may  be  avoided,  it  Is 
also  explained  in  this  writing." 


820  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  Bishops,  but  it  confines  itself  to  Christ  and  to  His 
salvation.  The  Saviour,  the  Living  Christ,  is  the  centre  of 
the  Formula.  In  this  sense  the  Formula  is  the  return  of  the 
Church  back  to  Christ.  In  a  historical  sense,  it  is  a  return 
from  Melanchthon,  for  whom  the  Person  of  Christ  was  not 
the  centre,  to  Luther,  for  whom  the  Person  of  Christ  was — in 
his  earlier,  and  growing  ever  more  intensely,  for  his  later 
years — the  source  and  centre  of  hope  and  faith.  The  For- 
mula is  the  Lutheran  Church's  expansion  of  the  Second 
Article  of  the  Creed  and  of  Luther's  explanation  of  it,  as  the 
remedy  for  all  the  errors  and  conflicts  of  Protestantism. 
Luther's  theology  was  the  whole  Christ  and  nothing  but 
Christ.  His  striving  was  a  "  profound  and  earnest  attempt 
to  secure  full  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  truly  divine 
and  the  truly  human  natures,"  especially  of  the  human 
nature,  as  enjoying  also  the  fullness  of  the  divine,  in  the  in- 
separable union  of  the  one  Person.  By  this  one  fact  he 
felt  himself  separated  from  the  Roman  scholasticism  of 
earlier  ages.  "The  most  exalted  theologians  in  former  times 
flew  from  the  humanity  of  Christ  to  His  divinity,  and  clung 
alone  to  this.  I  was  also  formerly  such  a  doctor,  and  ex- 
cluded the  humanity.  But  we  must  ascend  to  the  divinity, 
and  hold  fast  to  it,  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  abandon  the 
humanity  of  Christ.  Thou  shouldst  know  nothing  of  any 
God,  or  Son  of  God,  but  Him  who  is  declared  to  have  been 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  to  have  become  man."  '  For 
Luther,  God  and  man  were  inseparable  in  Christ,  and  that 
was  the  mystery  of  the  redemption  and  of  its  application  in 
Word  and  Sacrament.  Being  inseparable,  the  man  in  Christ 
secures  for  itself  a  participation  in  the  loftiest  prerogatives 
of  the  divine  glory;  and  this  fact  in  Christ  is  the  key  that 
unlocks  all  the  teachings  of  Scripture  as  to  the  One  by 
Whom  we  are  saved.  The  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  and  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  are  the  two  great  testimonies,  the  one 
divine,  and  the  other  human,  that  Deus  et  homo  unus  est 
Christus. 

^  ErL,  47.   362. 


CHAPTER   XXXV. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

WHAT    THE    FORMULA    OF    CO^^CORD    ACCOM- 
PLISHED AS  A  CONFESSION  OF  THE 
LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

The  Substance  of  the  Gospel  Set  Together  after  Protestantism  had  been  Tested — 
A  Confession  of  Teachers  and  Congregations — It  Rescued  the  Church  from  a 
Petty  Doctrinal  Territorialism — It  Recovered  the  Church  from  the  Weaknesses 
of  Its  Friends — The  Estimate  of  Seeberg — It  Preserved  the  Existence  of  the 
Church  — It  Brought  Peace — It  Made  Possible  a  Substantial  Catholic  Evan- 
gelical Church — It  Guarded  the  Relation  of  the  Divine  and  the  Human  in  All 
the  Great  Doctrines — It  Settled  the  Question  of  Justification,  of  Synergism  and 
of  the  Sacraments — The  White  Winged  Standard  of  Peace — The  First  Permanent 
Synthesis  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon — It  Deserves  to  be  Accepted  by  the  Lu- 
theran Church. 

THE  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  old  Faith  of  God's 
Word  sTimmed  up  for  Protestantism,  subsequent  to 
the  period  of  testing,  and  once  again  set  together.  It  was  the 
Augsburg  Confession  reconciled  in  its  own  native  meanings, 
and  repeated  reverently  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  con- 
fessors. '  It  was  the  very  substance  of  the  Gospel  and 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  kneaded  through  the  experi- 
ence of  the  first  generation  of  Protestantism,  by  incessant 
and  agonizing  conflict,  and  coming  forth  from  that  experi- 
ence as  a  true  and  tried  teaching,  a  standard  recognized 
by  many. 


*  Concordia.    Pia   et   Unaiiimi   covsensn    rcpetito    Confessio. 

821 


822  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  appearing  in  the  first  flush 
of  heroic  reaction  from  Rome,  had  proven  to  be  a  popular 
standard.  But  it  was  something  done  for  the  congrega- 
tions and  not  by  them.  Originally  it  figured  as  the  private 
Confession  of  the  Elector  John.  Under  stress  it  was  broad- 
ened out  to  include  the  other  territorial  heads  of  Lutheran- 
ism.  But,  whereas  the  Augustana  had  seven  signers,  the 
pious  and  unanimous  repetition  of  the  Augustana,  the  Con- 
cordia, had  over  seven  thousand  signers.  After  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  had  been  delivered  for  the  whole  Church 
prior  to  its  (lisciiHsion,  and  had  resulted,  in  part  through 
Melanchthon,  in  endless  and  ever  weakening  post-eventu 
discussion,  the  Concordia  was  signed  by  the  far  greater  part 
of  the  Church,  and  not  until  all  had  participated  fully  in 
its  discussion,  and  it  thus  became  the  Church's  own  act 
and  document. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  great  Evangelical  in- 
strument that  rescued  the  Evangelical  Churches  from  the 
evils  of  a  petty  doctrinal  territorialism,  from  the  polemicism 
ol  powerfully  protected  partizanships  in  isolated  institutions 
of  learning,  from  many  princes'  individual  bodies  of  doctrine, 
and  brought  the  men  of  the  Lutheran  Faith  together  on  the 
basis  of  an  internal  agreement  in  the  new  growth  and  life 
that  had  now  sprung  up  beyond  the  dark  shadows  thrown  by 
the  closed  circle  of  Rome. 

The  Book  of  Concord  gave  all  Lutherans  who  wish  to 
confess  it,  not  a  mere  common  corpus,  but  a  vital  and 
organic  Confession,  and  relieved  the  Church  of  the  numerous 
collections  of  confessional  and  doctrinal  writings,  bulky  and 
individualistic,  which  separate  territorial  churches  had  drawn 
up  as  their  standard.  In  other  words,  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, notwithstanding  the  independent  Lutherans  who  did 
not  acknowledge  it,  accomplished  in  the  Sixteenth  Century 
what  the  general  bodies  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America, 
despite  the  many  independent  synods,  are  attempting  to 
accomplish  in  the  Twentieth   Century,   viz.,   protecting  the 


ACCOMPLISHMENT    OF   FORMULA.      8<!3 

Church  from  absorption  and  furnishing  one  common  centre 
of  strength  on  which  reliance  can  be  placed. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  Lutheran  Faith  in  the 
attitude  of  respectful  apology  and  defence  against  an  open 
foe  without.  The  Formula  of  Concord  is  the  Lutheran 
Faith  in  the  attitude  of  recovering  itself  from  weaker 
friends  within  and  devouring  friends  without.  Augustana 
rescued  the  Church  from  decapitation  at  the  hand  of  the 
foe;  Concordia  rescued  it  from  slow  poisoning  at  the  hand 
of  its  own  members. 

The  two  great  Confessions  are  each  the  result  of  a  great 
situation  for  which  neither  of  them  was  responsible:  in  the 
case  of  the  Formula,  it  was  a  terrible  internal  situation  in 
the  demoralized  Church  of  Luther.  "  In  forming  our  esti- 
mate of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind," 
says  Seeberg  (translated  by  Hay),  "  that  the  problems  with 
which  the  Formula  deals,  were  dividing  the  church  in  that 
age;  that  it  actually  gave  expression  to  a  consensus  already 
inaugurated ;  and  that  it  consequently  succeeded  in  gradually 
restoring  the  peace  of  the  church.  The  detailed  theological 
definitions  of  the  pure  doctrine  which  it  presented  were  in 
keeping  with  the  spirit  that  had  prevailed  in  the  church  it 
represented  for  about  a  century  and  a  half.  We  can,  there- 
fore, as  little  ignore  the  historical  necessity  of  the  enter- 
prise, as  we  can  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  tactful  and 
energetic  literary  labor  which  it  reveals.  The  Formula  of 
Concord  did  indeed  make  final  the  breach  between  the  Luth- 
eran-Melanchthonian  and  the  Calvinistic-Melanchthonian 
types  in  the  evangelical  church  of  Germany ;  but  this  breach 
was,  under  the  existing  circumstances,  unavoidable.  Xo 
reproach  can  be  cast  upon  a  Confession  for  giving  expression 
to  a  condition  of  affairs  already  existing." ' 

And  Seeberg  is  justified  in  speaking  still  more  positively. 
He   asserts   that   the   Formula   preserved   to   the   Lutheran 


'  History   of  Doctrines,   II.    pp.    382-383. 


824  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Church  her  right  of  self-existence. '  Repeating  that  the 
Formula  arose  from  an  inner  historical  necessity  in  the 
Church,  that  it  solved  its  own  particular  task  in  a  prudent 
and  far-sighted  way,  that  the  Melanchthonian  doctrine,  the 
more  thoroughly  it  was  taught,  the  more  decidedly  it  worked 
toward  a  division  of  the  Church,  that  the  nearer  Philippism 
approached  Calvinism  and  the  more  Gnesio-Lutheranism 
advanced  into  party  limits,  the  less  was  any  unity  to  be 
thought  of,  Seeberg  goes  on  to  say,  ''  In  this  lies  the  supreme 
significance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  of  the  Book 
of  Concord,  that  through  it  the  Lutheran  Church  upheld  her 
*  Selbstandigkeit '  as  over  against  Calvinism." 

Seeberg  declares  that  "  it  was  not  some  theological  party 
that  had  forced  its  views  upon  the  Lutheran  Church,"  in 
the  adoption  of  the  Formula,  "  but  the  germ  of  a  con- 
sensus which  had  been  really  at  hand  had  attained  to  its 
unfolding  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  It  represented  a  Mel- 
anchthonian-Lutheranism  .  .  .  The  Formula  of  Concord 
taught  the  doctrine  which  had  gradually  shaped  itself  out 
among  the  Lutheran  theologians.  It  was  therefore  able  to 
pacify  the  Lutheran  Church."  *  As  showing  what  the  Con- 
cordia wrought,  Seeberg  goes  so  far  as  to  insist  that  "  his- 
torical insight  must  not  allow  itself  to  be  darkened  to  such 
an  extent  by  subjective  inclination  as  to  deny  that  the 
situation  of  the  Lutheran  Church  at  that  time  was  such 
that  any  unity  of  the  Calvinistic  with  the  Lutheran  teaching 
Would  have  rendered  the  destructive  ecclesiastical  strife 
irithin  itself  eternal."  ' 

The  valuelessness  of  Dr.  SchafF's  judgment  on  the  Formula 
is  due  to  his  position  on  the  L^nion  question.  The  Formula 
thoroughly  blocked  the  way  to  union  with  the  Reformed  by 
permanently  setting  forth  the  inner  strength  of  a  genuine 
and  consistent  Lutheranism  as  the  full  sum  of  evangelical 
faith.  Dr.  Schaff  would  have  a  re-union  of  the  Reformed 
and  Lutheran  Churches  on  the  basis  that  Lutheranism  sur- 
render or  ignore  its  central  doctrines  and  come  over  to  a 

■Hauck,  Cyc.      *  lb.       "16. 


ACCOMPLISHMENT    OF    FORMULA.      835 

substantially  Reformed  position.  This  is  always  the  uncon- 
scious position  of  the  unionist  with  respect  to  Lutheranism. 

The  Augustana  with  the  tenth  article  altered,  and  the  con- 
demnation omitted,  might  have  constituted  a  fine  historical 
basis  for  such  a  union,  prepared  by  Melanchthon  himself,  and 
leaving  the  historical  glory  to  Lutheranism,  but  taking  away 
the  actual  substance  of  its  truth. 

This  glorious  re-union  of  Protestantism  at  the  expense  of 
genuine  Lutheranism  was  prevented  by  the  Formula.  Hence 
Dr.  Schaff,  and  many  before  and  after  him,  feel  that  the 
Formula  is  sectarian,  and  that  it  has  prevented  the  building 
up  of  a  imited  Protestant  Church  with  the  excrescences  of 
Lutheranism  lopped  off,  and  with  the  Reformed  spirit 
triumphant  as  a  formative  factor. 

That  our  estimate  reveals  the  inner  standpoint  of  the 
harsh  judgment  voiced  by  Dr.  Schaff  against  the  Formula 
may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  Dr.  Schaff  quotes  as  "not 
without  good  reason,"  the  striking  statement  of  Kliefoth, 
"Mit  Spener  beginnt  jener  grosse  Erohernngszitg  der  Re- 
formirten  Kirche  g^gen  die  Lutherische,  der  seitdem  ver- 
schiedene  l^amen,  erst  Frommigkeit,  Dann  Toleranz,  dann 
Union,  dann  Confederation  auf  sein  Panier  geschrieben 
hat."  •' 

In  other  words.  Dr.  Schaff  plainly  admits  that  the  progress 
of  unionism  in  the  Lutheran  Church  is  an  "Eroberungszug," 
a  procession  of  triumph,  for  the  Reformed  Church. 

The  Formula  saved  the  Church  from  Roman  attacks  and 
Romanizing  teachings  on  the  one  side  and  the  Reformed 
tendencies  on  the  other,  that  were  creeping  in  from  without ; 
and  it  preserved  the  Church  from  both  the  extremely  rigid 
partisans  of  Luther ; '  and  from  the  compromising  Philip- 
pists  who  were  agitating  and  destroying  it  from  within.  It 
proved  a  solid  centre,  with  substance  and  strength,  which 

6»  Creeds,   I,   p.    307. 

•  "  Thatsachlich  war  Luther  die  hoehste  Auctoritat,  obwohl  seine  Lehre  mit 
TJmsicht  und  Scheu  vor  aller  Vehertreibung  durchgefuhrt  wurde." — Hase,  Kir- 
chengeschichte. 


826  THE    LUTHEHAN    CONFESSIONS. 

gave  continued  possibility  of  existence,  and  prevented  the 
absorption  in  surrounding  faiths  even  of  many  Lutherans 
who  vs^ould  not  accept  it,  but  who  for  various  doctrinal  and 
personal  reasons  rejected  it,  though  remaining  benefited 
by  the  sphere  of  its  influence. 

It  settled  and  set  at  rest  the  hidden  frictions  which  re- 
mained embryonic  in  the  early  years  of  the  Reformation, 
but  which,  as  soon  as  opportunity  offered,  if  they  had  pre- 
vailed, would  have  carried  the  Church  to  one  extreme  or  the 
other,  or  into  unbelief,  doubt  and  despair  of  ever  arriving  at 
a  consistent  faith.  It  thus  made  possible  and  established  a 
conservative  and  Catholic  evangelical  faith  which  has  given 
rise  to  no  Oxford  movements  on  the  one  hand,  nor  Inde- 
pendent sectarian  movements  on  the  other. 

What  has  the  Formula  accomplished  for  evangelical  doc- 
trine? It  has  settled  forever  the  primacy  of  the  Person 
and  Work  of  Christ  in  the  Lutheran  Faith,  and  determined 
and  maintained  the  balance  of  the  divine  and  human  ele- 
ments in  each;  thus  giving  confessional  authority  to  the 
mystery  of  the  Cross  hid  from  ages,  both  in  predestination, 
revelation,  redemption,  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  and 
in  the  nature  of  the  Church  itself. 

It  has  guarded  forever  against  any  confusion  as  well  as 
any  separation  of  the  divine  and  the  human,  but  has  found 
in  the  counsels  of  God,  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  Person  of 
Christ,  in  Justification  and  in  Sanctification,  and  in  the 
Sacraments,  a  proper  point  of  union  in  each  case,  and  a 
mysterious,  superhuman,  but  vital  communion. 

It  taught  the  Lutheran  Church  to  <lwell  exclusively  neither 
on  the  literal  nor  on  the  spiritual,  but  on  the  underlying 
unity  in  both,  so  that  the  Word  was  not  without  the  Spirit, 
nor  the  Spirit  without  the  Word;  so  that  tradition  and  his- 
tory were  not  separated  from  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  separated  from  the  channels  and  forms  in 
which  He  operates.  It  settled  for  Lutheranism  the  ques- 
tion  as  to  whether  the  Law  was  still  to  be  preached   for 


ACCOMPLISHMENT    OF   FORMULA.      82: 

repentance,  or  whether  love  alone  works  both  faith  and  re- 
pentance,— one  of  the  vital  questions  in  the  Protestant  world 
of  to-day.  It  set  forth  that  Law  has  not  only  a  usus  politicus 
and  a  usus  elencficus,  but  also  a  usus  didacticus. 

It  settled  the  vital  question,  the  very  foundation  of  the 
Reformation,  whether  or  not  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ 
is  only  the  negative  condition  of  justification,  while  the  in- 
carnation— as  reproduced  in  the  believer,  is  its  positive  con- 
dition ;  whether  or  not  justification  is  a  making  righteous 
by  an  infusion  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

Plow  cardinal  and  yet  how  subtle  this  error  is  in  pre- 
vailing Protestantism  in  the  world  to-day  may  be  seen 
from  the  fact  that  nearly  all  the  newer  writers  on 
doctrine  who  touch  this  subject,  treat  justification  as  an 
infused  righteousness,  the  Osiandrian  heresy  reproducing 
itself  in  the  newer  advances  of  modern  denominational 
thought  and  teaching. 

It  settled  for  Lutheranism  the  question  of  synergism,  a 
teaching  perhaps  more  widespread  to-day  than  any  other 
in  the  Protestant  denominations  of  America. 

It  also  settled  forever  that  the  common-sense  rationalism 
of  Zwingli  as  to  the  mystery  of  Christ,  in  His  Word  and 
Presence,  acquiesced  in  now  by  the  majority  of  Protestants 
outside  of  our  Church;  and  the  Calvinistic  idealization  of 
the  Sacramental  principle  adhered  to  by  the  remaining  and 
more  meditative  Protestants,  run  a  deep  line  of  separation  be- 
tween themselves  and  the  Lutheran  faith.  This  prevented  a 
union  of  the  Reformed  with  Luther  and  Melanchthon  be- 
fore the  Church  possessed  either  the  Augustana  or  the 
Concordia,  though  Melanchthon  subsequently  wrought  misery 
in  the  Church  for  a  generation,  and  brought  on  hopeless 
internal  division,  by  cherishing  the  hope  of  bridging  this 
gulf;  not  because  he  believed  the  Lutheran  doctrine  er- 
roneous, but  because  he  felt,  synergistic  as  he  was,  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  spiritual  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  by 
faith,  gave  up  no  essential  part  of  religious  truth. 


828  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  has  opened  the  eye  of  faith  to 
this  mystery  in  which  the  reality  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
offered  to  God,  conditions  the  reality  of  the  sacrament  of 
Christ  offered  to  man,  as  no  Creed  or  Symbol  ever  was  able 
to  do  before.  *  The  invisible  reality  of  atonement  became 
visible  and  actual  in  the  body  and  blood  on  the  Cross;  and 
the  invisible  application  of  the  atonement  becomes  visible 
and  actual  in  the  body  and  blood  in  the  Sacrament.  There 
is  no  figure,  but  an  actual  divine  provision  in  both.  "  A 
presence  of  the  whole  Person  of  Christ,  of  the  divine  by 
its  inherent  omnipresence,  and  of  the  human  through  the 
divine — a  presence,  not  ideal  or  feigned,  but  most  true; 
not  fleshly,  but  spiritual ;  not  after  the  manner  of  this  earth, 
but  of  the  unseen  world ;  not  natural,  but  supernatural — 
this  presence  the  Lutheran  Church  maintains,  and,  God 
helping  her,  will  maintain  to  the  end  of  time."  * 

Are  not  the  questions  decided  by  the  Formula,  on  the  basis 
of  Scripture,  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  still  burning  prob- 
lems ifi  the  wider  religious  world  to-day  ?     Namely, — 

1.  That  there  is  only  one  rule  of  faith  and  life; 

2.  That  God's  Law  and  authority  are  needed  now  as  ever 
to  check  the  evil  in  our  heart  and  in  the  world,  and  to  bring 
a  knowledge  of  sin,  even  though  salvation  comes  only  by  the 
Gospel ; 

3.  That  there  are  things  of  minor  importance,  in  teach- 


*  Compare  the  beautiful  insight  of  Krauth  :  "  As  is  the  redemption,  so  is 
its  sacrament.  The  foundation  of  both  is  the  same,  and  lies  forever  in- 
approachable by  man.  ...  In  the  redemption,  nature  furnished  the  out- 
ward organ  of  the  divine,  in  the  frail  body  and  the  flowing  blood  of  our  cruci- 
fied Lord.  Through  this  organ  an  infinite  ransom  was  accomplished.  In  the 
Supper,  the  organ  of  the  redemption  becomes  the  organ  of  its  application. 
With  an  artlessness  which  heightens  its  grandeur,  this  redemption,  which 
forever  centres  in  Christ's  sacred  and  undivided  person,  veils  its  supernatural 
powers  under  the  simplest  elements  which  sustain  and  revive  our  natural  life. 
But  faith  none  the  less  clearly  sees  that  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the 
communion  of  Christ's  body,  and  that  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  blesa  Is 
the  communion  of  His  blood." — Coii.  Ref.,  pp.  465  sq. 

*>CoH.   Ref.,   pp.   4C0   sq. 


ACCOMPLISHMENT    OF   FORMULA.      829 

ing,  custom  and  life,  but  that  in  crises  even  such  things 
may  assume  great  importance. 

4.  That  salvation  comes  not  at  all  from  deeds;  but  that 
where  salvation  takes  root  by  faith  in  the  heart,  deeds  spring 
up  spontaneously  in  the  life. 

We  do  not  realize  what  Protestantism  has  had  protected 
and  preserved  for  it  by  the  Confession  of  the  Formula. 

Luther  died  with  the  premonitory  clouds  of  dust  presaging 
the  coming  storm  sweeping  his  gloom-stricken  brow;  Me- 
lanchthon  died  terrified  and  broken-hearted.  The  gates  of 
hell  were  opened  and  the  hounds  of  war  were  let  loose.  The 
Pope  and  the  Emperor  conspired  to  bring  the  Protestant 
movement  to  ruin,  and  its  congregations  back  to  the  cor- 
rupt old  fold.  The  brilliant  lustre  of  the  glorious  standard 
of  Augsburg,  the  Magna  Cliarta  of  the  Christian  Faith, 
was  being  tarnished  by  its  own  bearers.  The  edge  of  the 
line  was  turned,  broken.  ISTone  thought  of  advance,  and 
none  knew  how  to  retreat.  Confusion  reigned  upon  the 
field. 

During  such  times  and  amid  such  travail,  God  set  up  the 
Formula — a  white-winged  standard  of  order  and  peace,  " — 
round  which,  after  the  death  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  the  host 
of  the  Lord  could  flock.  This  was  the  conviction  of  the 
great  multitude  of  its  signatories.  It  brought  light,  rule, 
order  and  peace  into  the  Lutheran  situation;  and  the  storm 
which  Luther  foresaw  and  ]\relanchthon  experienced  gave 
way  to  calm. 

This  Formula  of  Concord  is  a  great  symbol.  It  is  noth- 
ing less  than  the  first  and  permanent  synthesis  of  Luther 
and  Melanchthon.  It  is  the  teaching  of  Luther  in  the 
spirit  and  the  form  of  Melanchthon.  It  has  combined  the 
two  antagonistic  forces  of  the  Reformation. 

It  has  worked  its  impress  into  the  faith  and  life  of  the 


'^"  That  anti-Lutheran  book,  Der  Protestantismus  in  seiner  Relhst-Auf.dsung ; 
Schaffhausen,  1843,  admits  that  "  after  the  acceptance  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,    the   theological   strife  receded   from   the   arena   of  public  life." 

56 


830  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Church  as  did  the  oecumenical  creeds,  which  also  for  ages 
left  parties  outside;  and  time  will  show,  if  the  Church  is 
true  to  herself,  that  this  firm  but  moderate  centre,  this 
balance  of  mutually  destructive  principles,  this  source  of 
internal  strength,  which  will  make  planets  and  not  mere 
comets  of  the  Protestant  churches,  will  finally  prevail  in  our 
midst,  and  among  the  children  of  men. 

It  asks  our  acceptance  and  deserves  our  respect,  not  as 
a  great  theological  production,  nor  yet  as  a  Commentary  on 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  as  the  solemn  and  well- 
matured  testimony  of  our  Church"  as  to  the  witness  and 
teaching  of  the  Augustana  on  the  great  doctrines  of  Prot- 
estantism as  they  appeared  shortly  after  its  birth  and  will 
continue  to  reappear  until  the  end  of  time. 

"  But  for  the  Formula  of  Concord  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  Protestantism  could  have  been  saved  to  the  world. 
It  staunched  the  wounds  at  which  Lutheranism  was  bleed- 
ing to  death,  and  crises  were  at  hand  in  history,  in  which 
Lutheranism  was  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  Reforma- 
tory interest  in  Europe.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  the  war 
of  martyrs,  which  saved  our  modern  world,  lay  indeed  in  the 
future  of  another  century,  yet  it  was  fought  and  settled  in  the 
Cloister  of  Bergen.  But  for  the  pen  of  the  peaceful  tri- 
umvirates, the  sword  of  Gustavus  had  not  been  drawn.  In- 
testine treachery  and  division  in  the  Church  of  the  Reforma- 
tion would  have  done  what  the  arts  and  arms  of  Pome 
failed  to  do.     But  the  miracle  of  restoration  was  wrought. 


" "  The  symbols  do  not  assume  to  themselves  any  more  than  to  be  wit- 
nesses for  the  truth  ;  and  it  is  great  presimiption  for  a  preacher  to  wish 
to  be  more  than  this,  or  to  raise  himself  from  a  witness  to  be  a  judge  of  the 
truth,  above  the  Scriptures  or  the  church.  He  is,  or  indeed  should  be.  only 
a  witness  for  the  truth — not  a  preacher  for  himself  alone,  isolated  and 
separate,  as  a  testator  of  his  own  mere  private  opinion,  but  in  association 
with  the  other  witnesses  and  confes.sors,  that  is,  in  fellowship  with  the 
church  as  a  co-witness  with  her  testimony,  and  a  partaker  in  the  general 
confession  which  she  makes.  He  does  not  believe  in  the  symbols,  but  with 
them.  If  he  is  unwilling  to  take  this  position,  and  wishes  with  his  new  spirit 
to  establsh  a  separate  and  new  congregation,  he  becomes  farther  and  farther 
sundered  from  the  common  scriptural  confessions  of  the  ancient  church,  and 
has  less  and  less  of  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  la  his  favor." — Sartorlus, 
Ev.   Rev. J   IV,   IS. 


ACCOMPLIHHMLJNT    OF   FORMULA.      831 

From  being  the  most  distracted  Church  on  earth,  the  Luth- 
eran Church  had  become  the  most  stable.  The  blossom  put 
forth  at  Augsburg,  despite  the  storm,  the  mildew  and  the 
worm,  had  ripened  into  the  full  round  fruit  of  the  amplest 
and  clearest  Confession,  in  which  the  Christian  Church  has 
ever  embodied  her  faith."  " 


Krauth,  Con.  Ref.,  p.  302. 


CHAPTER   XXXYI. 

THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSION. 

THE  BOOK  OF  COXCORD.     THE  FACTS  OF  ITS 
OPJGIX  AXD  PUBLICATION.    KOLDE'S  ESSAY. 

Its  Publication  began  in  1578 — Adoption  of   Early    Symbols— The  Earliest  Edi- 
tions—  The  Title — The  Arrangement — Later  Editions. 

ALOjSTG  with  the  efforts  for  recognition  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  went  the  other  task  which  involved  the 
framing  of  a  Corpus  Doctrinae  that  was  to  nnite  all  the  sub- 
scribers to  the  Formnla  of  Concord.  The  publication  of  the 
same  was  begun  in  1578,  nnder  the  direction  of  Jacob 
Andreii,  to  whom  Archdeacon  Peter  Glaser  and  a  Dean, 
Kaspar  Fiiger,  of  the  Church  of  the  Cross  in  Dresden,  had 
been  associated  as  correctors.  Their  aim  was  to  meet  in  a 
preface  of  some  length  the  many  attacks  to  which  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  had  been  submitted. 

Such  a  preface,  prepared  as  an  explanation  of  the  theo- 
logiaiis  on  many  separate  questions,'  was  in  the  end  not 
adopted.  Its  place  was  taken,  in  accordance  with  the  whole 
preceding  development,  by  a  preface  of  the  Evangelical 
Estates  subscribing  to  the  '^Book  of  the  Concordia,"  with 
the  addition  of  their  subscriptions.  To  this  are  added  "T/te 
Three  Chief  Creeds  or  Confessions  of  the  faith  of  Christ, 
concordantly  accepted  in  the  Churcli," 

The  adoption  of  these  symbols  of  the  early  Church,  the 

*  Printed  by  T  h  .  P  r  e  s  s  e  1 ,  as  above,  p.  711. 

833 


ORIGIN   AND    PUBLICATION.  833 

Apostoliciira  and  the  Nicaenmn  (more  correctly  the  Nicaeno- 
Constanlwopolifanum),  occurred  as  follows.  It  must  be 
traced  back  to  Melanchthon,  who,  in  order  to  emphasize  the 
unity  with  the  whole  church,  declares  at  once  in  the  first 
article  of  the  Augustana  with  especial  mention  of  the  Ni- 
caenum,  which  for  centuries  was  regarded  as  the  foundation 
of  all  orthodoxy,  that  the  evangelical  churches  assent  to  it  and 
to  statements  in  the  Athanasianum/  Then  too  it  was  im- 
portant for  this  question,  as  well  as  for  all  subscription  to 
symbols,  that  in  the  "Wittenberg  doctor's  vow,  which  dates 
from  Melanchthon,  those  to  be  promoted  were  obligated  to  de- 
fend the  Apostolic,  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  and  that 
since  1535  this  was  extended  to  all  ordained  in  Wittenberg." 
The  next  step  was  Melanchthon's  Confessio  Saxonica, 
of  the  year  1551,  written  to  be  presented  at  the  Tridentine 
Council,  and  in  which  he  emphatically  declares  the  adherence 
of  the  Evangelicals  to  these  symbols/  The  same  was  done 
by  John  Brentz  in  the  Confessio  Suevica,^  which  was  written 
for  the  same  purpose,  and  in  the  Frankfurt  Recess  of  1558.' 
In  the  Corpus  Philippicum,  accordingly,  they  preceded  the 
writings  of  Melanchthon  and  were  received  into  most  of 
the  Corpora  Doctrinae  always  in  order  to  establish  the  con- 
nection v/itli  the  early  Church.  As  the  Schwabian  Concordia, 
perhaps  with  reference  to  the  fact  that  Osiander  had  sharply 
opposed  an  obligation  upon  the  Symbols,^  subscribed  to  them. 


2  Cf.  K  o  1  d  e  ,  The  Augsh.  Conf.  etc..  p.  23.  Zwingli  did  the  .same  in  his 
Fidei  Ratio.  Cf.  Karl  Miillcr,  Die  Bekenntnisschriften  der  reform. 
Kirche.  Leipzig,   1903,  p.   79  sq. 

'  Liber  Decanonirn  Facultatis  TheologiccE  Academice  Yitebergensis  ed.  F  6  r  .<?  - 
t  e  m  a  n  n  .  Lipsiae,  1538,  p.  158,  and  C.  R.  XII,  5  sq. 

*  C.  R.,  XXVIII,  376,  and  H  e  p  p  e  ,  D.  Bekenntnisschriften  der  altprot. 
Kirche  Deutschlands.      Kassel,    1855,    p.    413. 

'  H  e  p  p  e  ,  a.s  above,  p.  492. 

*  C.  R.,  IX,  494,  and  H  e  p  p  e  ,  as  above,  562.  Here  they  are  called  the 
three  chief  symbols.  As  to  the  transactions  of  the  Frankfurt  Diet,  Cf.  G  . 
Wolf,  Zur  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Protestantismus.  Berlin,  1888,  pp.  120, 
sqq. 

'  Cf.  C.  R..  VIII,  6  sq.,  and  S  t  r  o  b  e  1 ,  Beitrdge  zur  Literatur  d.  16.  Jahrh., 
II,  1.  Niirnberg,  1786,  p.  192  sq.,  and  P.  Tschackert,  Neue  Beitrage  zur 
Geschichte  der  Symbolverpflichtung.     Neue  Kirchl.  Zeitschr.   (1897),  p.  807. 


834  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

it  was  only  in  agreement  with  the  whole  preceding  develop- 
ment, that  they  are  placed  first  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  as 
being  the  chief  symbols. 

When  in  the  title  they  are  described  as  " concordantly  used 
in  the  Church,"  an  expression  nsed  by  Luther  M^as  adopted, 
who  in  his  writing,  "  The  Three  Symbols  or  Confessions  of 
the  Faith  of  Christ,  Concordantly  Used  in  the  Church.  Wit- 
tenberg, 1538,"  as  a  matter  of  fact  had  understood  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed  and  the  Te  Deum  by  this  expression,  and  had 
added  the  Nicene  Creed,  by  way  of  appendix,  as  "  a  confes- 
sion also  opposed  to  Arius." '  It  was  his  German  translation 
as  there  given  that  was  received  into  the  Book  of  Concord. 

The  Latin  rendering  of  the  "concordantly  used"  by  "Sym- 
bola  catholica  sen  oecumenica,"  which  since  then  became  the 
usual  one  in  Evangelical  theology,  must  be  traced  to  Nicholas 
Selnecker,  who  in  three  publications  of  the  year  1575  calls 
the  three  symbols  "  oecumenica "  and  after  that  used  this 
name  in  his  lectures  and  in  catechetical  instruction." 

The  three  General  Creeds  are  followed  in  the  order  in 
which  they  were  first  placed  by  the  Schwabian  Concordia,  by : 
1.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  "as  the  symbol  of  our  time" 
to  use  the  words  of  the  Formula  of  Concord/*    2.    The  Apol- 


*  Luther's  Works,  Eri.,  Ausg.,  23,  251.  It  is  therefore  incorrect  when 
Ad.  Harnack  says  in  Prot.  RealcnzykL,  I,  742,  1  sqq.  :  Luther  was 
perhaps  the  first  to  place  the  three  together  as  expression  of  the  general 
confessions  of  the  Church.  This  was  done  long  before,  and  not  at  all  by 
Luther.  The  Te  Deum  was  even  in  the  Middle  Ages  here  and  there  grouped 
with  the  confessions  of  the  early  Church.  Cf.  T  h  i  e  m  e  ,  Theol.  Literaturblatt, 
1892,  p.  543. 

•First  in  his  Historica  Narratio  et  Oratio  de  D.  D.  Martina  Luthero,  Lips., 
1575,  which  originated  from  lectures  on  Luther's  life,  delivered  in  Nov.,  1574, 
where  he  speaks  of  the  completion  of  his  lectures  entitled  "  Exegesis  Sym- 
bolornm  Catholicoruin  et  vere  O  e  c  ti  m  e  n  i  c  o  r  u  m  ;  secondly,  in  his 
Catechesis  Marti7ii  Lutheri  Minor  Gracolatina,  published  1575  (not  1577  as 
Thieme  reports).  Here  on  p.  165  we  read:  "  Quot  sunt  Symbola  fidei 
Christianae  in  Ecclesia?  Tria  sunt  pracipua.  quae  nominantur  oecumenica , 
sive  universalia  et  authentica  id  est,  habentia  auctoritatem  et  non  indigentia 
demonstratione  aut  probatione.  viz.,  Symbolum  Apostolicum,  Nicenum  et 
Athanasianum."  Last  of  all,  in  the  published  edition  of  his  lectures  on  the 
three  symbols :  Symbolorum,  Apostolici,  Niceni,  et  Athanasiani  Exegesis  etc. 
Lips.,  1575,  where  on  p.  6  we  read:  Haec  tria  Symbola  sunt  Catholica  et 
Oecumenica. 

^^  In  the  Epitome,  p.  518.  "  Symbolum  "  for  the  Augustana  was  first  used 
In  a  statement  of  the  Hessian  Theologians  of  the  year  1570  :  "  The  Augsburg 
Confession    which    is    our    symbol."      In    Neudecker,    Neue    Beitrdgc    zur 


ORIGIN   AND    PUBLICATION.  835 

ogy.  3.  The  Schmalkald  Articles  with  the  subtitle :  "  Ar- 
ticles of  Christian  Doctrine,  which  were  to  have  been  Pre- 
sented on  our  Part  to  the  Council  if  any  had  been  Assembled 
at  Mantua  or  elsewhere,  Indicating  what  we  could  Receive  or 
Grant,  and  what  we  Could  not.  Written  by  Dr.  Martin 
Luther  in  the  year  MDXXXVII."  Immediately  following 
this,  as  a  sort  of  appendix,  came :  "Of  the  Power  and  Prim- 
acy of  the  Pope.  Treatise  Written  by  the  Theologians  as- 
sembled at  Schmalkald,  in  the  Year  MDXXXVII."  4.  The 
Small  Catechism  (with  the  orders  for  baptism  and  marri- 
age)." 5.  The  Large  Catechism.  G.  The  Formula  of  Con- 
cord." As  an  appendix  we  find  the  Catalogue  of  proof  pas- 
sages, etc.,  and  the  names  of  the  theologians  and  school- 
masters who  subscribed.  On  June  25th,  1580,  the  fiftieth 
anniversary  of  the  presentation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
the  work  was  published  in  Dresden: 

Concordia.  Jehovah.  Christliche,  W^iderholete,  ein- 
miitige  Bekenntniis  nachbenanter  Churfiirsten,  Fursten 
und  Stende  Augspurgischer  Confession,  und  derselben 
zu  ende  des  Buchs  underschriebener  Theologen  Lere 
und  Glaubens.  Mit  angeheffter.  in  Gottes  wort,  als  der 
einigen  Richtschnur,  wolgegriindter  erklarung  etlicher 
Artickel,  bei  welchen  nach  D.  Martin  Luthers  seligen 
Absterben  disputation  und  streit  vorgefallen.  Aus  ein- 
helliger  vergleichung  und  befehl  obgedachter  Churfiir- 
sten, Fursten  und  Stende,  derselben  Landen,  Kirchen, 
Schulen  und  Nachkommen,  zum  underricht  und  warnung 
in  Druck  vorfertiget.  Mit  Churf.  G.  zu  Sachsen  be- 
freihung.     Dressden  M.D.LXXX. 

Concordia.  Jehovah.  Christian,  repeated,  unanimous  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Doctrine  of  the  after-named  Electors, 
Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  their 


Geschichte  d.  Reformation.  Leipzig,  1841,  II,  p.  292.  The  term  "  Symbola  " 
for  the  other  writings  was  perhaps  first  used  by  H  u  1 1  e  r  ,  Coinpendium 
Locorum   theologicoruni.     Wittenberg,    1610.   p.    10. 

"  See  on  this  point  below. 

"  The  Epitome  and  the  Solid  Declaration  both  bear  a  special  title-page  and 
the  date  "  Dressden,  1579,"  which  permits  the  conclusion  that,  although  a 
separate  edition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  before  the  Book  of  Concord  can- 
not be  proven,  it  was  yet  intended. 


836  TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

theologians  subscribed  at  the  end  of  the  book.  To  which  is 
added  a  declaration,  well-founded  in  God's  Word,  as  the  only 
rule  of  certain  articles,  in  regard  to  which  after  Dr.  Martin 
Luther's  blessed  death  dispute  and  controversy  have  taken 
place.  Upon  the  common  counsel  and  command  of  the  same 
Electors,  Princes  and  Estates  for  the  instruction  and  warn- 
ing of  their  lands,  churches,  schools  and  descendants,  done 
in  print.  With  Privileges  of  His  Grace,  the  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony, Dresden,  M.D.LXXX. 

In  all  probability,  althougli  M.  Chemnitz  "  speaks  of  two 
editions,  there  appeared,  to  be  exact,  only  one  official  Dresden 
edition  in  the  year  1580  ;  but  the  copies  of  the  same  that  have 
come  down  to  us  show  in  part  some  very  considerable  varia- 
tions." According  to  the  statements  of  the  Saxon  court 
preacher,  Polycarp  Leiser,^  which  give  the  impression  of  com- 
plete reliability  and  in  the  main  agree  with  those  of  Chem- 
nitz, the  printing  was  somewhat  hastily  done  and  the  sheets 
were  printed  and  sent  out  separately.  Thereupon  came 
objections  from  theologians  and  princes,  partly  on  account 
of  the  separate  parts,  partly  on  account  of  considerable  mis- 
prints. This  occasioned  the  reprint  of  individual  sheets, 
which  were  again  sent  out  separately,  but  in  the  binding  were 
not  placed  by  all  recipients  in  the  place  of  the  earlier  ones. 
Besides,  the  printers  may  have  sent  out  mixed  copies. 

Thus,  to  enumerate  only  the  most  important,  there  oc- 
curred the  following  divergencies :  1.  Out  of  consideration 
for  the  Highland  Princes,  especially  for  the  Elector  of  th- 
Palatinate,  who  objected  to  the  exorcism  in  Luther^s  baptis- 
mal formula  (Taufbiichlein),  the  Dresden  Consistory  had 
agreed  to  omit  the  Taufbiichlein  and  the  Traubiichlein,  on  tlie 
ground  that  these  things  belonged  "non  ad  doctrinalia  sed  ad 


''  In  his  letter,  Nov.  7th,  1580,  de  mutatione  Formulae  Concordlae,  in 
II  u  1 1  e  r  ,   Concordia  coyicors,  t.   360   sq. 

"  Cf.  F  e  u  e  r  1  i  n  1  ,  Bibliotheca  Symholica,  ed.  J.  B.  Riederer,  Normb.,  1768. 
I,   8  sq. 

"  Polycarp  L  e  i  s  e  r  '  s  short  and  well  founded  report  on  the  accusation 
promulgated  in  public  print  under  the  name  of  Daniel  Hoffmann  against  the 
Christian   Concordia  printed   in   Dressden.      Dresden,   1597. 


ORIGIN   AND    PUBLICATION.  837 

caerimonialia."  But  when  the  sheets  in  question  were  pub- 
lished, the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  Duke  William  of  Liine- 
burg,  and  above  all  Chemnitz,  filed  objections.  Therevipon 
the  Elector  ordered  them  included.  This  led  to  negotiations 
during  which  Chemnitz,  to  satisfy  all,  proposed  "One  should 
print  the  small  Catechismum  Lutheri  thus  into  the  Concordien 
that  one  may  lay  the  Taufbiichlein  and  the  Traublichlein  into 
it  or  take  it  out."  This  was  agreed  to  and  as  a  result  there 
were  copies  that  contained  both  parts,  others  (those  printed 
first)  that  simply  omitted  them,  and  others  which  marked 
their  absence  and  the  place  where  they  were  to  be  laid  in 
eventually  in  such  a  way  that  the  last  leaf  of  the  small 
Catechism  bears  the  page  numbers  169,  170,  171,  172,  173, 
at  the  same  time.  2.  Some  copies  bear  as  title  over  the 
catalogus  testhnonlorum  the  term  "Appendix,"  while  in 
others,  conformably  to  the  desire  of  the  Elector  Palatinate, 
since  this  was  not  discussed  or,  as  others  thought,  so  as  not 
to  grant  them  the  same  authority  as  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, the  word  "  Appendix  "  is  simply  omitted.  3.  In  the 
Formula  of  Concord  (in  Miiller,  595,  Cf.  variants,  p.  824), 
the  quotation  from  Article  XX  of  the  Augustana  was  repro- 
duced according  to  the  quarto  edition  of  1531,  as  it  was  in 
manuscript.  Chemnitz,  who  at  once  observed  the  discrepancy 
with  the  text  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  which  rested  upon  the 
Maintz  manuscript,  ordered  this  sheet  to  be  reprinted,  which 
brought  about  another  difference  of  copies  that  was  accord- 
ingly made  special  use  of  by  the  opponents.' 

In  the  same  year  Selnecker  produced  a  Latin  edition  of 
the  Book  of  Concord,  which  although  described  as  "Communi 
Consilio  et  Mandate  Electorum,  etc.,  vulgata,"  was  altogether 
a  private  undertaking.     It  contained  the  first,  rather  crude, 


'•  Of  less  importance  was  the  error  called  by  Chemnitz  "  pudendum  erratum," 
which  was  corrected  in  a  reprint  (  M  ii  1  1  e  r  ,  p.  539,  33,  see  variants,  p.  824). 
Some  copies  also  have  at  the  close  after  the  signatures  a  special  leaf  with 
two  verses  from  the  9th  Psalm,  the  book-mark  of  the  printers,  Stockel  and 
Gimel  Bergen,  and  after  the  print  mark  the  erroneous  date  M.D.LXXXI,  which 
In  other  prints  was  erroneously  corrected  to  M.D.LXXIX. 


838  THE   LU  THE  BAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ti-anslation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  had  been  begun 
by  Lucas  Osiander  in  1578,  and  completed  by  the  Tiibingen 
professor,  Jacob  Heerbrand."  As  the  whole  edition  was  full 
of  errors,"  it  found  no  favor,  and  Elector  August  seems  to 
liave  prohibited  its  circulation/"  Only  after  a  thorough 
revision  of  Selnecker's  text,  especially  that  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,'"  which  must  be  attributed  essentially  to  Chem- 
nitz, had  been  effected  at  the  convention  at  Quedlinburg 
(Dec,  1582  and  Jan.,  1583),  which  was  especially  devoted 
to  the  completion  of  the  most  important  article  of  defence 
of  the  Concordia,  the  "  Apologia  or  Defence  of  the  Christian 
Book  of  Concord,"  did  the  Elector  command  the  reprint  of 
the  revised  text  "for  the  benefit  of  our  student  youth  and  the 
foreign  churc^h."  At  the  same  time  it  was  ordered  to  omit 
the  signatures,  so  that  no  one  need  complain  that  his  name 
was  appended  to  a  book  which  he  had  not  read  or  approved.  * 
The  edition  published  at  Leipzig  in  1584  became  the  textus 
recrptus  of  the  Latin  Book  of  Concord. 

In  a  new  Latin  edition  of  1G02,  the  ordering  of  which 
became  authoritative  for  most  of  tlie  later  ones,  the  Preface 
of  the  Estates  was  preceded  by  an  Electoral  IMandate  (accord- 
ing to  the  German  edition  of  1603,  in  our  Ed.  Ill,  appendix, 
p.  785),  in  which  Christian  II.  of  Saxony,  orders  that  all  of- 
ficials be  obligated  upon  the  Book  of  Concord.  It  after- 
wards received  another  addition  in  the  fact  that  in  the  Saxon 
editions  the  "  Christian  Articles  of  Visitation  of  1592"  were 
inserted  (our  edition,  p.  778).    This  was  most  probably  done 


■"'  Cf .  G  .  B  o  s  s  e  r  t  ,  Vchersettwu/cn  <1.  Formulae  Concordie,  Zeitschr.  f. 
Kirchengesch.  XIX,  470.  Although  according  to  this  by  the  end  of  Oct.,  1580, 
the  printing  ot  it  had  been  going  on  for  a  long  time,  it  seems  never  to  have 
been  published. 

"  Be  it  again  observed  that  it  reproduced  the  Augustana  of  the  octavo  edition 
of  1531  and  contained  many  typographical  errors,  among  others  the  much 
rldJciiled  one  in  the  Tractatus  clr  potrstate  Papw :  "  ultimum  ferculum" 
instead  of  "  ultimum  ius  et  iudicium." 

"  H  e  p  p  e  ,    Gesch,  d.  deutsch.  Prot.,   IV,    225. 

'"Selnecker  himself  furnished  a  revised  text  in  his  German-Latin 
separate  edition  of  the  P.  C.  of  1582. 

-^  Cf.    Polycarp    Leiser,    as    above,    Diij. 


ORIGIN   AND   PUBLICATION.  839 

first  in  the  German'^  edition  of  Henry  Pipping  of  the  year 
1703. 

The  Saxon  Articles  of  Visitation  owe  their  origin  to  the 
Crypto-Calvinistic  disturbances  that  arose  again  toward  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  the  Elector  Christian  I.  (y  Sept.  25th, 
1591),  the  victim  of  which  the  Chancellor  Nicholas  Krell 
(■j-  Oct.  9th,  1601)  was  to  become.  In  order  to  prevent  all 
agitation,  Duke  Frederick  William,  who  was  regent  for 
Christian  II.  during  the  latter's  minority,  ordered  a  general 
church  visitation.  The  theologians  called  for  the  same,  M. 
Mirus,  G.  Mylius,  J^gidius  Hunnius,  Burch.  Hebardus,  Jos. 
Loncrus  and  Wolfg.  Mamphrasius  composed  as  a  guide  for 
it :  "  Articles  of  Visitation  "*  for  the  whole  electoral  territory 
of  Saxony,  together  with  the  Calvinist's  Negativa  and  Coun- 
ter-teaching, and  the  form  of  suhscription  in  the  manner  in 
which  they  have  been  put  before  both  parties  for  subscription." 
They  treat  in  four  sections  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the 
Person  of  Christ,  of  Baptism,  of  Election  and  eternal  Fore- 
knowledge of  God.  i^ccording  to  a  rescript  of  ]\Iarch  6th, 
1594,  all  pastors  and  teachers  of  Saxony  had  to  subscribe  to 
these  Articles,  and  it  was  in  force  up  to  1806.  For  this 
reason,  they  possessed  a  legal  and  binding  importance  for 
Saxony,  but  only  for  this  country.  They  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Book  of  Concord  or  with  the  symbols  of  the 
Lutheran  Church. 


^  I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain  when  it  first  occurred  in  the  Latin  text. 
It  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  editions  of  Rechenberg.      [Kolde.] 

-5  Printed  in  1593.  Cf.  also  Gri'mdl.  Verantivortunp  der  vier  streitige^i 
Artikcln,  wie  dieselbigen  inn  Theses  und  Antitheses  kiirzlich  verfasset  u. 
in  jiingst  verrichteter  Chursachs.  Visitation  zu  underschreiben  vorgelegt 
worden,  gestellet  durch  die  zu  ermeldter  Visitation  verordneten  Theologen. 
Leipz.,  1593,  8.  Aeg.  Hunnii,  Wlderlcciung  des  Calvinischen  Biichleiiis, 
so  wider  die  zur  Visitation  d.  Chursachs.  Kirchen  u.  Scbuleu  verfasste  vier 
Artikel  ausgesprengt  worden,  1593,  8. 


CHAPTEE  XXXVII. 

FEOM  THE  BOOK  OF  CONCORD  TO  THE 
PRESENT  DAY. 

The  Story  of  Unionism  and  Confessionalism  according  to  Schaff — The  Seventeenth- 
Century  Dogmatik— Criticism  of  the  Same — The  Reaction  in  Calixtus — The 
Modern  Individual  Philosopher  and  Dogmatist — The  Course  of  tlie  Church 
in  Europe — In  America — Dogmatic  System  and  the  Confession. 

THE  FRATERNAL  AND  UNION  VIEW  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


a  f  I  "^HE  spirit  of  Melanchthon  could  be  silenced,  but  not  destroyed,  for  it 
I  meant  theological  progress  and  Christian  union.  It  revived  from  time 
to  time  in  various  forms,  in  Calixtus,  Spener,  Zinzendorf,  Neander 
and  other  great  and  good  men,  who  blessed  the  Lutheran  Church  by  protesting 
against  bigotry  and  the  overestimate  of  intellectual  orthodoxy,  by  insisting  on  per- 
sonal, practical  piety,  by  widening  the  horizon  of  truth,  and  extending  the  hand 
of  fellowship  to  other  sections  of  Christ's  kingdom.  The  minority  which  at  first 
refused  the  Formula  became  a  vast  majority,  and  even  the  recent  reaction  of 
Lutheran  confessionalism  against  rationalism,  latitudinarianisni,  and  unionism  will 
be  unable  to  undo  the  work  of  history,  and  to  restore  the  Lutheran  scholasticism 
and  exclusivism  of  the  Seventeenth  Century.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  greater 
and  wider  than  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and,  by  its  own  principle  of  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith,  it  is  bound  to  follow  the  onward  march  of 
Biblical  learning."  ' 

This  is  a  typical  statement  of  the  cGHseqneiices  and  the 
fate  of  Lntheran  Confessionalism,  sketched  in  the  spirit 
of  Zwingli,  Beza,  Arnold,  Zinzendorf,  Ileppe,  S.  S. 
Schmiieker  and  Dorner.  It  expresses  the  feelings  of  the  great 
American  writer  on  the  Creeds  of  the  Christian  Church, 
but  is  out  of  harmony  with  a   sober  judgment  found   else- 

>  Schaff,  Creeds,  1,  p.  339  sq. 

840 


UNIONISM    AND    CONFE SSIONALI SM.     841 

avIktc  in  his  work.  More  recent  historians  have  shown 
that  "  the  spirit  of  Melanchthon "  did  not  mean  "  theo- 
logical progress,"  but  scholastic  definition.  The  freedom 
and  vitality  of  Luther  in  his  whole-souled  and  unvaried 
Confession  is  in  contrast  with  the  confining  school-work  of 
Melanchthon.  "  It  cannot  be  denied,"  says  Seeberg,  "  that 
the  Formula  of  Concord  by  its  classical  theological  manner 
has  contributed  much  toward  the  ossification  of  Lutheran 
theology,  and  has  limited  and  broken  its  practical  working." 
Let  the  reader  then  accept  this,  once  for  all,  that  the  scho- 
lastic method  in  setting  up  dogma  by  definition  and  inference, 
is  of  Melanchthon,  to  whom  Calvin  was  a  correlate  in  the 
Reformed  Church. 

Keither  did  ''  the  spirit  of  Melanchthon  "  mean  "  Chris- 
tian union."  It  meant  an  attempt  at  union  by  ambiguity  of 
expression,  which  in  time  invariably  reacted  and  in  place  of 
union  brought  final  dissension  and  confusion.  The  entire 
movement  of  the  Reformed  Church  under  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  of  this  fraternizing  but  finally  disruptive  charac- 
ter, and  Schaif  himself,  with  feeling,  repudiates  our  Con- 
fession as  a  legitimate  expression  of  the  Reformed  prin- 
ciple. 

"  The  spirit  of  Melanchthon "  was  not  revived,  so  far 
as  dogma  was  concerned,  in  Spener  or  Neander:  the  great 
hiatus  between  Spener  and  the  spirit  of  Melanchthon  is  best 
seen  in  the  mutually  hostile  attitude  of  Zinzendorf  and 
Muhlenberg  in  America.  "  The  spirit  of  Melanchthon," 
as  shown  sufiiciently  in  Melanchthon's  correspondence,  laid 
more  stress  on  "  intellectual  orthodoxy,"  and  less  on  per- 
sonal faith  and  practical  piety  than  did  that  of  Luther. 
Luther  was  the  truthful,  the  prayerful,  the  believing,  the 
resigned,  the  heroic  and  the  spiritual-minded  Christian. 
Melanchthon's  spirituality  does  not  free  itself  from  shrewd 
manoeuver  and  logical  platitude.  "  The  spirit  of  Melanch- 
thon "  did  ?iot  "  extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  other  sec- 
tions of  Christ's  kingdom  "  at  Marburg  (the  scene  probably 


842  THE   LU  THE  BAN   CONFESSIONS. 

in  the  mind  of  the  author),  but  Melanchthon  was  more 
'  bigoted '  against  Zwingli  than  Luther.  Luther  "  would 
gladly  have  given  up  his  life  three  times  "  (these  are  his 
own  words)  to  reach  harmony  in  the  Confession  of  the  sac- 
rament. "  Who  .  .  .  that  will  read  Zwingli's  Reckoning 
will  not  see  that  Luther  acted  with  astonishing  moderation 
at  Marburg  ? " "  He  separated  from  Zwingli  under  the 
assurance  of  mutual  patience  and  love.  But  Luther  under- 
stood thereby  the  universal  Christian  and  not  the  intimate 
brotherly  love,  because  the  latter  demanded  a  perfect  har- 
mony of  faith. '  The  superficiality  of  the  view  voiced  by 
Schaff,  and  prevalent  elsewhere,  as  to  "  the  bigotry  of  Con- 
fessional Lutheranism,"  is  most  strikingly  seen  in  his  bal- 
ancing of  Lutheran  "  confessional  ism,  scholasticism,  and  ex- 
clusivism  "  on  the  one  side,  against  "  rationalism,  latitudi- 
narianism  and  imionism "  on  the  Melanclithonian  side. 
In  reply,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  inquire,  Are  rationalism  and 
latitudinarianism  the  company  in  which  unionism  wishes 
to  be  found !  The  reader,  last  of  all,  will  note  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  frame  a  more  fallacious  statement  than  the 
final  one  of  this  unionistic  historian,  in  which  "  the  Bihle  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  "  is  made  to  appear  synonymous  with 
the  free  "  onward  march  of  Biblical  learning"/* 


'  Jacobs,   Preface  to  Book  of  Concord,  11,   p.   6. 

'  The  Elector  and  the  Margrave  at  Schleiz  agreed  entirely  with  Luther  that 
full  unity  in  the  faith  was  needed  for  mutual  defence ;  and  when  tlierefore 
the  Schwabach  Articles  were  placed  before  the  Zwinglians  as  a  Confession, 
they  declined  to  sign.     This  put  an  end  to  the  proposed  federation. 

*  In  this  discussion,  and  elsewhere,  we  have  selected  and  used  the  classic 
statements  of  Schaff  by  way  of  illustration,  for  several  reasons.  First  of  all, 
he  is  the  author  of  the  one  standard  work  on  Symbolics  in  the  American 
Church,  and  in  that  work  he  assigns  the  first  place  to  the  Lutheran  symbols, 
and  gives  them  a  more  complete  discussion  than  is  to  be  found  elsewhere  in 
the  English  language  outside  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Second,  he  was  all 
his  life  intimately  connected  with  Lutherans  and  the  Lutheran  Church,  and 
was  a  life  witness  of  the  Confessional  development  that  culminated  in  the 
General  Council.  Third,  his  own  general  doctrinal  position,  and  the  tone  and 
spirit  of  his  writings  are  such  as  that  they  would  probably  meet  with  ac- 
ceptance as  expressing  the  views  of  those  of  our  readers  who  do  not  agree 
with  us,  both  those  without,  and  those  within  the  Lutheran  Church.  He 
stood,  so  long  as  he  lived,  both  in  word  and  example,  at  the  head  of  that 
movement  which  believes  that  the  days  are  ripe  for  advancing  to  an  external 
Christian   union. 

Any  one  who  weighs  the  judgments  of  Dr.  Schaff   (taken  in  connection  with 


U S I  0  X I  .S M    A  y  D    CO y  F E S .'^ I  O y  a  lis M .      84^ 


THE   DEVELOPMENT    IN    HISTORY. 

From  Luther  and  Melanchthoii,  the  confessional  principle 
of  Christianity  developed  into  that  body  of  truth  more  pure 
and  complete,  more  satisfactory  to  the  mind  and  the  heart, 


the  steps  in  his  own  life)  respecting  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  will  find  that, 
though  he  Is  the  most  voluminous  non-Lutheran  English  commentator  on  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  yet  his  sympathies  were  all  against  it,  and  its  principles, 
In  consequence  of  his  nature,  his  training,  the  denominational  changes  in  his 
life,  his  type  of  theology,  his  position  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  in 
consequence  of  all  he  hoped  to  accomplish  toward  the  re-union  of  Christendom 
in    the   fostering   of   the    Evangelical    Alliance. 

Dr.  Schaff's  mind  on  the  question  before  us  is  revealed  by  the  kind  of 
solution  that  he  propose.s  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed doctrines.  He  says,  "We  firmly  believe  (Creeds  of  Christendom,  p. 
S27),  that  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  views  can  be  essentially  reconciled,  if 
subordinate  differences  and  scholastic  subtleties  are  yielded.  The  chief 
elements  of  rrconciliation  are  at  hand  i»  the  Ulelanchthonian-Calvinistic 
theory.  The  Lord's  Supper  is:  1.  A  commemorative  ordinance.  (This  is  the 
truth  of  the  Zwinglian  view).  2.  A  feast  of  living  union  of  believers  with  the 
ever-living,  exalted  Saviour,  whereby  we  truly,  though  spiritually,  receive 
Christ  with  all  His  benefits,  and  are  nourished  by  His  life  unto  life  eternal. 
(This  was  the  substance  for  which  Luther  contended  against  Zwingli,  and 
which  Calvin  retained,  though  in  a  different  scientific  form,  and  in  a  sense 
rightly  confined  to  all  believers.)  3.  A  communion  of  believers  with  one 
another  as  members  of  the  same  mystical  body  of  Christ." 

This,  then,  is  Schaff's  method  of  carrying  out  the  proposition  to  unite  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches,  viz.,  by  accepting  "  the  true  Zwinglian 
view,"  and  adding  to  it  "  the  Calvinistic  view,"  and  then  calling  it  "  the 
substance  of  the  Lutheran  view."  That  Lutheranism  loses  everything  is  too 
obvious  to  need  pointing  out — and  yet  Dr.  Schaff  can  go  on  in  the  same 
breath  and  say:  "The  Eucharistic  controversies  are  among  the  most  unre- 
freshing  and  apparently  fruitless  in  Church  history.  Theologians  will  have 
much  to  answer  for  at  the  Judgment  Day  for  having  perverted  the  sacred 
feast  of  divine  love  into  the  apple  of  discord.  No  wonder  that  Melanchthon's 
last  wish  and  prayer  was  to  be  delivered  from  the  rabies  theolor/orum.  .  .  . 
Fortunately,  even  now  Christians  of  different  denominations  and  holding  dif- 
ferent opinions  can  unite  around  the  table  of  their  common  Lord  and  Saviour." 

Surely,  one  who  thus  sharply  condemns  the  Lutherans,  as  answerable  at  the 
.Tudgment  Day,  for  having  persisted  in  unimportant  doctrinal  differences  would 
be  prepared  to  yield  all  for  the  sake  of  a  general  concord.  And  yet,  when 
proposing  such  a  concord,  he  preserves  his  own  doctrine  ("reconciliation  by 
the  Mclanchtbonian-Calvinistic  theory"),  and  sacrifices  the  Lutheran  doctrine, 
and  calls  the  result  union. 

That  Schaff,  in  his  Symbolical  work,  expresses  an  aiiimMS  against  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  to  be  seen  in  his  account  of  the  meeting  of  Luther  and 
Zwingli  at  Marburg.  He  says,  "  Zwingli  proposed,  with  tears,  peace  and  union, 
notwithstanding  this  difference  [in  the  Eucharist],  but  Luther  refused  the  hand 
of  Christian  fellowship,  because  he  made  doctrinal  agreement  the  boundary- 
line  of  brotherhood."  (Creeds,  p.  362.)  He  fails  to  add  that  Zwingli's  tears 
[for  even  according  to  Dr.  Schaff,  Zwingli  was  no  emotionalist]  were  not 
tears  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  respecting  the  failure  of  a  political 
alliance  which  was  at  the  bottom  of  this  proposed  compromise  ;  and  that  the 
doctrinal  peace  that  would  have  ensued,  would  have  been  somewhat  of  the 
nature  between  that  proposed  by  the  traditional  lion  to  the  lamb. 

But  the  animus  of  Dr.  Schaff  as  a  unionist  toward  the  Lutheran  Church 
comes  out  most  clearly,  not  in  speaking  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  but 
at   the    point    where    he    has    passed    on    to    a    consideration    of    the    Reformed 


844  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  more  worthy  of  Christ's  own  Church,  than  the  world 
has  elsewhere  possessed.  All  the  parts  in  this  whole  exhibit 
the  same  form  of  doctrine,  and  *'  he  who  candidly  adopts  the 
Augsburg  Confession  will  not  hesitate  to  adopt  those  with 


Confessions,  and  where  he  describes  the  historical  origin  of  the  names  of  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed.  Here  he  says  that  the  followers  of  Luther. 
"  forget  St.  Paul's  warning  against  sectarian  names.  They  gradually  ap- 
propriated the  term.  Lutheran  or  Evangelical  Lutheran,  as  the  official  title  of 
the  Church  since  about  1585,  under  the  influence  of  Jacob  Andreae,  the  chief 
author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord."  The  whole  passage  is  instructive,  and 
we  therefore  give  it  as  follows  : 

"  We  take  the  term  Reformed  here  in  its  catholic  and  historical  sense  for 
all  those  Churches  which  were  founded  by  Zwingli  and  Calvin  and  their 
fellow-reformers  in  the  sixteenth  century  on  the  Continent  and  in  England 
and  Scotland,  and  which  agreed  with  the  Lutheran  Church  in  opposition  to 
the  Roman  Catholic,  but  differed  from  it  in  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
afterward  also  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  By  their  opponents  they 
were  first  called  in  derision  ZwingUa-ns  and  Calrinists,  also  Sacravientarians 
or  Sacrament-schwdrmer  (by  Luther  and  in  the  Formula  of  Concord),  and  in 
France  Hitgnenota.  But  they  justly  repudiated  all  such  sectarian  names, 
and  used  instead  the  designations  Christian  or  Evangelical,  or  Reformed,  or 
Evangelical  Reformed  or  Reformed  Catholic.  The  term  Reformed  assumed 
the  ascendency  in  Switzerland,  France,  and  elsewhere.  Beza,  c.  g.,  uses  it 
constantly.  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  sundry  letters  to  the  Protestant  courts  of 
Germany  in  1577,  speaks  throughout  of  ecclesiw  reformatcB,  and  once  calls 
the  non-Lutheran  Churches  ecclesicB  reformatiores,  more  Reformed,  implying 
that  the  Lutheran  is  Reformed  also. 

"  The  Lutherans,  before  the  last  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century,  called 
themselves  likewise  Christian  and  Evangelical,  sometimes  Reformed,  and 
since  1530  the  Church  or  Churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  Vcrwandte 
der  Augsburgisehen  Confession.  For  a  long  time  they  disowned  the  terms 
Lutheranus,  Luthcricus,  Lutheranisuius,  which  were  first  used  by  Dr.  Eck, 
Cochlaeus,  Erasmus,  and  other  Romanists  with  the  view  to  stigmatize  their 
religion  as  a  recent  innovation  and  human  invention.  (A  Papist  once  asked 
a  Lutheran,  '  Where  was  your  Church  before  Luther?  '  The  Lutheran  an- 
swered by  asking  another  question,  '  Where  was  your  face  this  morning  be- 
fore it  was  washed?').  Eramus  speaks  of  Lnthcrana  tragedia,  negotium 
Lutheranum,  factio  Lutheraiia.  Hence  the  Lutheran  symbols  never  use  the 
term  Lutheran,  except  once,  and  then  by  way  of  complaint  that  the  '  dear, 
holy  Gospel  should  be  called  Lutheran.'  Luther  himself  complained  of  this 
use  of  his  name  ;  nevertheless  he  had  no  objection  that  it  should  be  duly 
honored  in  connection  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  thought  that  his  followers 
need  not  be  ashamed  of  him.  They  thought  so,  too  ;  and,  forgetting  St.  Paul's 
warning  against  sectarian  names,  they  gradually  themselves  appropriated  the 
term  Lutheran,  or  Evangelical  Lutheran,  as  the  official  title  of  their  Church, 
since  about  1585,  under  the  influence  of  Jacob  Andreae,  the  chief  author  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  Aegidius  Hunnius,  and  in  connection  with  the 
faith  in  Luther  as  a  special  messenger  of  God  for  the  restoration  of  Christianity 
in  its  doctrinal  purity.  See  the  proof  in  the  little  book  of  Dr.  Heinrich  Heppe, 
Vrsprung  und  Geschichte  der  Bezeichnungcn  'reformirtc'  und  '  lutherische ' 
Kirchc,  Gotha,    1859.    pp.    28,    35,    55. 

"  The  negative  term  Protestant  was  used  after  1529  for  both  Confessions 
by  friend  and  foe,  and  is  so  used  to  this  day  ;  but  it  must  be  explained  from 
the  historical  occasion  which  gave  rise  to  it,  and  be  connected  with  the 
positive  faith  in  the  Word  of  God,  on  the  ground  of  which  the  evangelical 
members  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  protested  against  the  decision  of  the  papal 
majority,  as  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  conscience  and  an  enforcement 
of  the   traditions  of  men." 

It   seems    that   Dr.    Schaff,    with    his    magnificent    vocabulary,    has    reserved 


UNIONISM    AND    CONFE SSIO NALISM.     845 

which  it  is  indissolubly  connected.     They  constitute  a  com- 
plete whole."  ° 

But  the  Seventeenth-Century  Dogmatik  of  the  Church  did 
not  flow  directly  and  solely  from  the  Book  of  Concord. 
The  fountain-head  of  Lutheran  Confessionalism,  beginning 
in  1517  with  the  Doctrines  of  justification,  repentance,  and 
faith,  in  the  Ninety-five  Theses,  ran  on  into  a  summary 
of  Lutheran  doctrine  in  the  Loci,  an  application  of  them 
in  the  Catechism,  a  defense  against  Roman  extremes  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  a 
defense  against  Protestant  extremes  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. Then  came  the  further  extension  and  development  of 
Melanchthon's  Loci  into  complete  dogmatic  system. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  LUTHERAN  DOGMATIK. 

Martin  Chemnitz  was  the  prince  of  Melanchthonian  theo- 
logians, who  so  thoroughly  apprehended  the  Confessional  sub- 
stance of  Luther,  in  his  Loci,  1591.  He  was  followed  by 
Hutter  in  his  Compendium,  1610,  and  in  his  Loci.^  His 
contemporary  was  the  mild  and  devout  Gerhard,  the  standard 
dogmatician  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  with  his  Loci,  1637. 
Calovius,  more  elaborate,  followed  in  his  Systema  Locorum 
Theologicorum  (1655-77).  One  century  after  the  Book 
of  Concord  came  Quenstedt'  (d.  1685),  and  Baier,'  1686; 


the  use  of  the  word  '  sectarian  '  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  and.  in  partif  ular, 
in  connection  with  the  author  of  that  symbol  which  is  the  Church's  most  har- 
monious and  final  expression.  Not  in  describing  anabaptists,  puritans,  radicals 
and  church  parties  of  the  wildest  sort,  does  he,  so  far  as  we  see,  characterize 
them  as  '  sectarian.'  It  is  the  great  balance  wheel  of  the  Reformation  Cof 
which  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  hub),  that  in  Dr.  Schaft's  thought  and 
mind  is  connected  with  the  'sectarian'  term  Lutheran,  which  was  used  by  way 
of  self-preservation  against  the  approaches  toward  the  Reformed  faith  which 
are  historically   involved   in   the   term   Melanchthonian. 

5  These  are  the  words  of  Charles  F.  Schaefter. — Ev.  Rev.,  I,  p.  476.  v.  also 
1,   p.  47a. 

^  Hutter's  Loci  Communrs  Theologici  is  an  extensive  commentary  on  Me- 
lanchthon's Loci.  His  Compendium  Theologieo  consists  of  definitions  from 
the  Book  of  Concord,  supplemented  by  passages  from  the  older  dogmatician';. 
After  the  literature  apologetic  of  the  Book  of  Concord  it  is  the  first  link  that 
connects  with   the   Concordia   rather   than   with  the  Loci. 

'  Quenstedt,    Theolof/ia  Didacticopolemica. 

•  Baier,   Comiiendlmn  Theologice  Positivce. 

57 


846  THE    LUTTIKnAK   CONFESSIONS. 

and    the    development    closed    half    a    century    later    with 
Hollazius, "  1750. 

Schmid,  who  aroused  a  modern  interest  in  these  giant 
builders  of  living  Lutheran  principle,  and  who  awakened 
the  American  confessional  development  through  the  younger 
Krauth  and  Sehraucker  just  prior  to  the  influence  of  the 
German  Lutheran  Immigration  in  the  middle  of  the  Nine- 
teenth Century,  happily  describes  the  course  of  this  Old 
Dogmatik  as  follows  : — 

"  IVIelanchthon,  who  stands  first  in  the  series  of  Lutheran  theologians,  in  the 
first  editions  of  his  Loci,  discusses  only  what  is  peculiar  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lutherafi  Church,  and  even  in  the  following  editions  he  treats  everything 
that  does  not  fall  under  this  head,  briefly  and  incompletely.  His  most  celebrated 
commentator,  Chemnitz,  already  aims  at  more  fulness  of  systematic  arrangement ; 
the  articles  on  God  and  the  Trinity,  etc.,  are  already  further  developed;  he  em- 
ploys with  more  freedom  than  Melanchthon  the  works  of  the  scholastics,  especially 
of  John  Damascenus.  In  Gerhard,  finally,  this  prejudice,  which,  for  other  reasons 
sufficiently  known,  was  cherished  against  the  scholastics,  was  so  far  overcome  that, 
in  the  articles  that  had  remained  unaffected  by  the  errors  of  the  Papacy,  the  theo- 
logical discussions  of  the  scholastics  were  laid  under  contribution ;  the  whole  rep- 
resentation of  the  doctrine  of  God,  his  attributes  and  essence,  of  the  Trinity,  of 
Angels,  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  etc.,  was  based  upon  the  scholastic  Theology. 

"  But  still  Gerhard  did  not  carry  out  this  method  with  uniformity,  nor  did  he 
thoroughly  arrange  his  materials ;  some  subjects  are  only  hastily  sketched,  as  that 
of  the  Work  of  Christ,  or  he  has  merely  collected  the  raw  material,  as  in  the  sub- 
ject  of  Angels.  The  following  theologians  fill  up  these  gaps,  and  introduce  greater 
uniformity  in  the  mode  of  treatment.  Gerhard  still  arranges  the  whole  in  Loci, 
and  does  not  allow  himself  to  reduce  it  to  a  system.  Calovius  first  attempted 
this,  by  introducing  the  so-called  analytic  method,  which  was  subsequently  em- 
ployed by  all  the  theologians,  down  to  Hollazius.  These  theologians,  therefore, 
first  reduced  Theology  to  a  system.  When  these  later  theologians  are  accused  of 
having  been  so  much  infected  with  the  scholastic  fondness  for  systematizing,  as  to 
give  to  Theology  a  form  too  scholastic,  I  am  not  prepared  altogether  to  deny  the 
charge."  *" 

This  development  of  Evangelical  Dogmatik  is  unparal- 
leled in  any  part  of  Protestantism  or  in  Eome.  But  it  is 
extra-confessional.     It  is  the  infusion  of  the  substance  of  the 


'  Hollazius,   Examen   Theologlce  Acroamaticce. 

">  Schmid,  Doctrinal  Theology,  tr.  by  Hay  and  Jacobs,  p.  9. 


UNIONISM    AND    CON  FE  S  SI  0  N  A  LI  S  M .      847 

Book  of  Concord  and  the  appropriation  of  so  much  of  the 
old  Roman  material  of  the  scholastic  doctors  as  could  flow 
through  Evangelical  channels,  in  the  form  and  under  the 
principle  of  Melanchthon's  Loci.  "  That  in  ultra-orthodoxy 
it  developed  into  extreme  hardness  of  form,  and  in  ultra- 
pietism  into  an  extreme  softness  of  substance,  is  but  a  testi- 
mony to  its  genuineness  under  the  usual  law  of  extremes. 
Later  centuries,  while  they  have  contributed  their  critical, 
philosophical,  historical,  vital  and  practical  advances,  have 
not  gone  beyond  the  confessional  substance  of  these  works, 
except  by  way  of  contrast  in  heretical  ideas  and  errors.  The 
Truth  of  God,  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  forever,  is  the 
Word  of  Christ.  It  is  not  enlarged  under  the  influence  of 
human  thought.  It  is  not  an  open  field,  with  wide  realms 
unexplored,  as  we  find  to  be  the  case  in  nature,  in  philoso- 
phy, in  biology,  and  in  science.  And  the  attempt  to  further 
expand  and  humanize  the  old  Evangelical  Catholic  Faith  of 
the  cpcumenical  symbols  and  the  later  Confessions  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  led  in  the  further  and  less  objective  Prot- 
estant development  of  following  centuries  to  individualism 
and  degeneracy.  Schmid,  in  describing  the  dogmatics  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  Seventeenth  and  the  whole  of  the  Eight- 
eenth Century  is  correct  in  saying  that  "  without  at  all  dis- 
cussing the  question  whether,  and  in  how  far.  Pietism  de- 
parted from  the  principles  of  Lutheranism,  it  is  perfectly 
evident  that  along  with  it  there  came  a  period  of  doctrinal 
uncertainty,  in  which  great  mistrust  was  displayed  in  regard 
to  the  whole  previous  development,  both  as  to  form  and  sub- 
stance." The  rigid  form,  the  disputatious  method,  the  ex- 
altation of  an  orthodox  intellectualism,  the  stress  on  a  right 
belief  rather  than  on  the  salvation  which  is  its  substance, 
these  are  not  the  result  of  the  Book  of  Concord  and  the 
Gospel  therein  confessed,  but  they  are  remnants  of  the  old 


"  Not  only  was  the  Loci  the  beginning  of  the  Lutheran  dogmatic  system, 
but  it  furnished  the  lines  along  which  the  doctrinal  development  of  Lutheran- 
ism unfolded  first  into  severe  Orthodoxy  in  the  Seventeenth,  and  then  into 
Illumination   in   the  Eighteenth    Century. 


848  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Eoman  scholasticism,  carried  down  by  the  Prseceptor  Ger- 
maniae  into  every  branch  of  learning,  and  departing  more 
and  more  from  the  original  intention  as  the  real  substance 
of  the  Gosjoel  died  away. 

"  The  orthodox  Dogmatik  of  the  Seventeenth  CentiTry 
is  a  majestic  resultant  of  Faith — the  most  painstaking  and 
most  acute  intellectual  work  in  the  history  of  ecclesiastical 
Christianity.  In  the  sum  of  its  services,  it  is  deeper  than 
the  theology  of  the  Church  Fathers,  more  true  than  that  of 
the  Scholastics,  more  scientific  and  candid  than  that  of  the 
Eoman  Church.  It  is  unexampled  in  its  deep,  fundamental 
and  critical  illumination  of  the  results  of  the  Christian 
Centuries.  The  whole  spirit  of  the  modern  world  and  of 
science  poured  itself  out  against  the  foundations  of  this 
Protestant  system  of  Faith,  because,  in  the  immense  safety 
and  security  of  its  upbuilding,  it  allowed  all  blows  to  pene- 
trate to  the  vital  parts;  and  dispensed  withthe  support  of  the 
Law  and  the  Hierarchy."  '' 

The  censors  of  this  Dogmatik  to-day  are  its  old  enemies, 
Rome,  Radicalism  and  Rationalism ;  and  the  newer  thinkers 
who  have  freed  themselves  from  the  trammels  of  Calvinism 
and  Puritanism,"  all  writers  who  are  critics  rather  than 
believers,  and  whose  ajiproach  is  by  sight  rather  than  by 
faith,  with  all  liberalists  and  unionists.  The  critics  include 
the  reactionary  world  and  the  world  of  advanced  thought. 
Between  these  two  extremes  stands  the  Rock  of  Confession- 
alism,  swept  by  the  tides  on  both  sides.  But  the  critical  force 
of  these  more  free  and  flowing  liberal  tides  is  not  always  just. 
If  it  be  directed  against  the  systemaiizcution  of  theology  as 


"Condensed  from  Gasz,   Geschichte  der  prot.  Dogm.,  I,  p.   6. 

'•■  "  For  Roman  Catholic  scholasticism  and  for  Calvin  there  is  an  absolute 
norm  by  -which  all  actions  can  be  truly  and  thoroughly  tested,  and  Church 
and  state  must  apply  the  tests.  Even  opinions  and  doctrines  held  by  the 
individual  are  thus  subject  to  an  infallible  review.  It  was  therefore  no 
hasty  or  ill-considered  action  for  Calvin  to  hand  Servetus  over  to  the  State 
for  proper  punishment.  Calvin  would  have  been  false  to  his  fundamental 
convictions  had  he  acted  otherwise.  Rome  only  was  wrong  in  shedding  the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  because  Rome  was  not  a  true  Church.  Given  a  true 
Church  and  her  duty  was  to  insist  that  the  State  protect  pure  doctrine." — 
Hibbert  Journal, 


UNIONISM   AND    CO N FE S SION ALI SM .      849 

such,  we  need  only  point  to  modern  writers  who  have  worked 
their  theology  into  a  dogmatic  system  more  detailed,  more 
speculative  and  more  elaborate  than  the  very  moderately 
sized  Formula  of  Concord.  Among  the  more  prominent  of 
these  in  the  Lutheran  Church  are  Thomasius,  Philippi,  jNIar- 
tensen,  Luthardt,  and  Valentine.  Among  the  American 
denominations,  it  will  suffice  to  recall  Hodge,  of  Prince- 
ton ;  Harris,  of  Yale ;  Clarke,  of  Colgate ;  Emanuel  Ger- 
hard's Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion, — to  say  noth- 
ing of  such  modern  German  writers  as  Schweitzer,  Pfleiderer, 
Lipsius,  Pitschl,  Kaftan,  and  Herrmann. 

If  objection  be  taken  to  the  scholastic  form  of  treatment, 
we  must  again  recall  the  fact  that  this  is  derived  from 
old  methods  of  the  Church ;  that  it  represents  Aristotle  as 
simplified  by  Melanchthon,  as  opposed  to  Bacon  in  modern 
thought ;  and  that  much  of  its  authoritativeness  is  due  to 
the  assurance  of  its  faith,  in  which  much  of  the  theology 
to-day  is  absolutely  lacking.  It  would  be  quite  possible  to 
conceive  of  a  Lutheran  Theology  identical  in  substance  with 
that  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  but  inductive,  or  Baconian, 
in  form.    The  genetic  method  is  modern. 

It  is  well  known  that  Schmid  of  Erlangen,  already  quoted 
a  few  pages  earlier,  who  arranged  Sehmid's  Dogmatik  drawn 
from  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians  of  the  Sixteenth  Century, 
did  not  commit  himself  personally  to  the  teachings  of  his 
work.  Yet  he  emphatically  repudiates  the  charge  made 
by    Heppe    against    the    classic     Lutheran     dogmaticians." 


"  "  I  do  not  at  all  agree  with  Heppe's  idea  of  an  early  Protestant,  i.  e., 
Melanehthonian  system  of  doctrine,  and  of  another  system  (that  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord)  diametrically  opposed  to  this  ;  nor  with  his  idea  of  an 
universal  prevalence  of  this  Melanchthonian  system  until  the  time  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  I  agree,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  most  widely  en- 
tertained opinion,  that  there  was  a  time  in  Melanchthon's  history  when  he  did 
not  in  all  respects  remain  true  to  Luther's  system  of  doctrine,  and,  therefore, 
the  later  theologians,  especially  Hutter,  undertook  to  vindicate,  in  opposition 
to  Melanchthon,  this  doctrinal  system  of  Luther,  which  had,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, been  more  clearly  developed  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church  through 
the  controversies  that  preceded  the  Formula  of  Concord.  There  is,  to  be 
sure,  a  real  antagonism  in  certain  topics,  but  it  is  not  an  antagonism  that 
runs  through  all  the  topics,  and  renders  a  sharp  distinction  necessary  between 
the  early  Protestant  theology  and  that  of  a  later  time.  Hence  I  was  at  liberty, 
yes,  it  was  my  duty,  to  lay  at  the  foundation  the  Melanchthonian  system  of 
doctrine. 


850  THE   LUTHERAN    CON  FE  >S  SI  ON  S. 

He  says  that  their  method  has  the  advantage  "  of  more  ac- 
curately defining  the  meaning  of  the  single  doctrine  and  of 
rendering  it  more  difiicnlt  for  heresy  to  screen  itself."  He 
l)elieves  that  we  ought  not  to  consider  it  a  task  "  to  search 
for  the  excellent  kernel  within  the  unsightly  shell."  He 
then  goes  on  to  declare  that  scholasticism  is  rooted  not  in  the 
later,  but  in  the  earlier,  Lutheran  theology.  "  When,  how- 
ever," says  he,  ''  the  charge  of  scholasticism  is  brought,  as 
is  sometimes  the  case,  against  the  contents  and  form  of  the 
doctrines  themselves,  and  made  to  refer  to  the  dialectic  devel- 
opment which  some  particular  doctrines  received  at  their 
hands,  we  reply,  this  is  a  charge  which  does  not  lie  against 
the  later  theologians  alone,  nay,  not  even  with  any  peculiar 
force  against  them.  This  is,  on  the  other  hand,  the  method 
which  the  theological  writers  of  our  Church  adopted  from  the 
very  first,  and  which  they  derived  from  the  treatment  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  e.  g.,  ex])('rience<l  already  in  the 
second  period." 

THE  REACTION  IN  CALIXTFS. 

The  Reaction  from  Orthodoxy,  referred  to  at  the  beginning 
of  this  chapter,  came  with  Calixtus.  From  the  old  dominion 
of  the  Church,  men  were  now  passing  through  the  Confes- 
sional Principle,  to  syncretism,  liberalism,  and  rationalism. 
With  the  triumph  of  rationalism  over  pietism,  and  humanism 
over  both,  was  ushered  in  the  modern  Protestantism,  subject 
to  no  authority  whatsoever. 

Pietism  must  be  regarded  not  only  as  a  reaction  against 
extreme  orthodox  intellectualism ;  but  in  its  better  and  orig- 
inal forms  as  the  earnest  antagonist  of  liberalism  and  ration- 
alism. Dr.  Krauth  says :  "  When  Spener,  Francke,  and  the 
original  Pietistic  school  sought  to  develop  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  Church,  they  did  it  by  enforcing  the  doctrines  of  the 


"  This,  it  is  true,  merely  explains,  and  does  not  vindicate,  my  method  of 
treating  Doctrinal  Theology.  To  do  this  I  should  have  to  write  another 
History  of  Protestantism  as  over  against  that  of  Mr.  Heppe.  Here  it  may 
suffice  for  me  to  say.  that  my  work  is  based  upon  a  totally  different  con- 
oeption  of  the  development  of  Lutheran  Theology  from  that  of  this  writer." — 
Schmid.   Doctrinal   Throlooi/,   Preface   to   tlie   Fifth    Edition. 

Even  the  rationalistic  Karl  Hase  repudiates  the  charge  of  an  un-Lutheran 
Scholasticism   iu   the  Old   Dogmaticlaus, 


UNIONI;SM    AND    C 0 N F E^ S 10 X ALISM.     851 

Church  ill  their  living  power.  They  accomplished  their 
work  by  holding  more  firmly  and  exhibiting  more  completely 
in  all  their  aspects  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  con- 
fessed at  Augsburg.  The  position  of  them  all  was  that  the 
doctrines  of  our  Church  are  the  doctrines  of  God's  Word, 
that  no  changes  were  needed,  or  could  be  allowed  in  them; 
that  in  doctrine  her  Reformation  was  complete,  and  that  her 
sole  need  was  by  sound  discipline  to  maintain,  and  b}'  holy 
activity  to  exhibit,  practically,  her  pure  faith.  These  men 
of  God  and  the  great  theologians  they  influenced,  and  the 
noble  missionaries  they  sent  forth,  held  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  firmly.  They  wrought  those  great  works,  the  praises 
of  which  are  in  all  Christendom,  through  these  very  doc- 
trines. They  did  not  mince  them,  nor  draw  subtle  distinc- 
tions by  which  to  evade  or  practically  ignore  them,  but,  alike 
upon  the  most  severely  controverted,  as  upon  the  more  gen- 
erally recognized,  doctrines  of  our  Church,  they  were  thor- 
oughly Lutheran.  They  held  the  Sacramental  doctrines  of 
our  Church  tenaciously,  and  defended  the  faith  of  the 
Church  in  regard  to  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  they 
did  all  her  other  doctrines."  *° 

The  period  of  degeneracy  is  thus  summarized  by  Weidner: 
''  At  the  beginning  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  there  was  a 
tendency  both  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  to  a 
greater  mildness,  readily  degenerating  into  laxity.  The 
Lutheran  Church  was  influenced  by  Pietism,  and  by  the 
philosophic  systems  of  Descartes,  Leibnitz,  and  Wolff,  while 
the  Armenian  tendency  gained  ground  in  the  Calvinistic 
churches.  Among  the  great  Lutheran  divines  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century  may  be  mentioned  Buddeiis  (d.  1720),  Pfnff 
(d.  1760)  and  ^S'.  /.  Baumgarten  (d.  1757).  The  influence 
of  Rationalism  shows  itself  in  Semler  (d.  1791),  and  the 
later  divines  of  this  century.  The  influence  of  Kant 
(d.  1804)  was  very  favorable  to  Rationalism.  The  orthodox 
system  rather  on  the  side  of  formal  supernaturalism  than  in 

1=  Con.   Rpf..   p.   196. 


852  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

its  own  churcHy  strength,  was  defended  by  StoiT  (d.  1805) 
and  Reinhard  (d.  1812)."  .  .  . 

The  men  who  found  the  Confessions  constrictive,  and  who 
lived  on  the  theory  that  men  could  be  Lutherans  and  ignore 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church  or  defend  them  with  a  reserved- 
ness  practically  equivalent  to  a  betrayal,  were  the  men  who 
harbored  unbelief  as  to  the  saving  merits  of  their  Lord's 
work  in  their  hearts.  Semler,  Bahrdt,  Gabler,  Wegschneider 
and  other  Rationalists,  were  influenced  by  the  all-penetrative 
and  overwhelming  spirit  of  the  time.  They  were  the  men 
who,  putting  the  Confessions  aside,  pretended  to  hold  the 
Word  of  God,  but  corrupted  its  sense.  ^ 

"Then  followed,  toward  the  close  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury, the  far  more  radical  reaction  of  Rationalism,  which 
broke  down,  stone  by  stone,  the  venerable  building  of  Luth- 
eran orthodoxy,  and  the  whole  traditional  system  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine."  " 

THE  T>KOr  INTO  MODERN  INDIVIDUALISM. 

TJie  rule  of  the  Church  had  been  rejected  already  in 
the  Reformation.  The  Bnle  of  Faith  had  now  also  disap- 
peared in  the  Illumination.     Every  man  built  truth  as  he 


'^^Encyclopedia:    Systematic   Theology,   pp.    98-99. 

"  So  completely  does  the  Formula  of  Concord  exhibit  the  pure  Lutheran 
faith,  and  so  adequately  does  It  express  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  that,  as 
the  whole  later  history  of  the  church  demonstrates,  it  was  invariably  found 
that  those  who  practically  rejected  the  Formula  of  Concord  after  the  days 
of  Semler,  also  rejected  the  whole  orthodox  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
the  Lutheran  symbols  which  in  point  of  time  preceded  it.  It  would  be 
unphilosophic  and  fruitless  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  of  the  last  of 
the  four  Gospels,  and  yet  profess  to  believe  those  of  the  preceding  three, 
since  all  contain  precisely  the  same  Gospel,  while  the  new  matter  in  St. 
John's  Gospel  is  only  a  fuller  exhibition  of  the  spirit  which  alike  pervades  all  ; 
and  it  would  be  as  unphilosophic  and  fruitless  to  reject,  on  doctrinal  grounds, 
which  we  have  here  no  room  to  discuss,  the  last  of  the  Lutheran  symbolical 
books,  and  yet  adopt  one  or  more  of  those  which  preceded  it,  since  the  last, 
the  Formula  of  Concord  contains  precisely  the  same  doctrines  which  they 
set  forth,  and  is  only  a  fuller  exhibition  of  the  divine  spirit  which  breathes 
in  them. — C.  F.  Schaeffer,  Ev.  Rev.  V.  203-204. 

"  Yet  they  were  not  one  whit  worse  than  the  Dean  of  the  Episcopal  Divinity 
School  at  Cambridge,  Mass.,  who  in  1908  said  that  the  problem  in  present 
preaching  is  to  tell  the  truth  concerning  the  Scripture  without  affrighting  the 
grandmothers  of  the  Church. 

"  Schaff,    Creeds    of    Christendom,    I,    p.    353. 


UNIONISM   AND    CONFE SSION ALISM.     853 

thought  it  right  in  his  own  eyes :  e.  g.,  Schleierniachcr.  The 
objective  strength  of  the  Gospel  was  gone.  Each  thinker  was 
free  to  think  out  truth  as  he  saw  it.  And  the  truth  found  was 
altogether  outside  the  revelation  of  Christ.  The  system-mak- 
ers of  the  mediaeval  church  became  the  philosophers  of  the 
modern  schools.  They  began  with  an  analysis  of  conscious- 
ness in  Descartes ;  with  a  criticism  of  the  relation  of  man's 
own  faculties  to  reality  and  truth  in  Kant,  with  the  perfect 
mechanical  orders  of  Creation  in  Leibnitz,  with  the  moral 
nature  in  Fichte,  with  the  laws  of  physical  nature  in  Schel- 
ling,  with  the  principle  of  all  nature  and  all  history  in 
Hegel,  with  the  application  of  human  Reason  to  the  Scrip- 
ture— the  Xew  Testament  in  Baur,  and  its  application  to 
Dogma,  with  not  only  the  Confession  but  the  objective  truth 
back  of  it  lost, — in  Kitschl.  Thus  the  birds  of  thought  had 
darted  out  of  the  Scriptural  net,  and,  exulting  in  their  free- 
dom, were  flying  in  all  four  quarters  of  the  sky. 

But  the  power  of  the  Gospel  was  not  gone.  There  was  a 
reaction  to  the  old  Rule  of  Faith — in  part  in  accord  with  the 
old  Confession  of  the  Faith,  and  in  part  with  the  new  free- 
dom from  the  Confessions  of  the  Church.  In  the  second 
instance  the  Scripture  became  the  modern  "  Bible,"  an  indi- 
vidual source  of  authority,  greater  or  less;  and  individual 
systems  of  dogmatics,  speculative,  ecclesiastical,  and  even 
Confessional,  arose  once  again.  In  the  first  instance,  there 
was  a  return  not  only  to  the  authority  of  the  Word,  but 
also  to  the  Confessions  of  the  Church."'  As  to  the  Dogmatik 
of  the  later  IS'ineteenth  and  the  Twentieth  Centuries,  and  the 
systems  elaborated  by  individual  writers  under  the  influ- 
ence of  some  philosophic  or  historical  principle  (in  which 
we  include  not  only  the  older  Hegelian,  but  also  the  modern 
Ritschlian  development  to  Harnack  and  those  after  him), 
it  is  not  pretended  that  they  represent  a  Church  standard, 


19"  £.    g.,  in   Sartorius    (d.   1859),   Vilmar    (d.    1868),    Thomasius    (d.    1875), 
Philippi    (d.   1882),   with  Luthardt  and  Frank. 


854  THE    LIT  HE  RAN    CONFESSIONS. 

or  Confessional  principle.  Thev  are  a  jjcrsonal  contempo- 
rary apprehension,  apart  from  church  or  historical  neces- 
sity, of  the  divine  system,  as  modern  insight  and  education 
conceive  it.  While  they  rlo  influence  individuals  in  the 
Church,  and  ultimately  reach  and  influence  the  Church  doc- 
trine ;  as  they  rise  and  flourish,  and  are  superseded  and  fade 
away,  they  have  no  effect  on  the  Church's  objective  Confes- 
sion of  the  truth. 

Yet  the  Lutheran  Church,  guided  by  her  Confessional 
Principle,  has  not  been  able  to  undergo  a  free  and  untram- 
meled  development  on  her  basis.  In  some  countries  the 
Confession  was  not  adopted  heart  and  soul,  and  was  not 
witnessed  to  and  taught  in  the  preaching  of  the  Word.  In 
many  of  the  countries  it  was  not  the  pure  Faith  for  the 
Faith's  sake,  but  the  Confession  was  a  question  of  the  gov- 
ernment determined  by  the  government,  or  a  question  of  ad- 
vantages to  be  gained  by  or  through  the  Faith.  In  nearly 
all  the  countries,  the  training  up  in  the  Faith  was  not 
wrought  out  by  the  Faith  apart  from  the  secular  arm ;  and 
in  some  countries  we  still  have  the  anomalous  spectacle  of  the 
secular  arm  educating,  training  and  appointing  the  preach- 
ers and  teachers  for  the  spiritual  work.  To  this  must  be 
added  not  merely  a  comjdete  freedom  from  the  Confession, 
but  an  avoidance  of  it,  for  prudential  reasons,  in  the  higher 
education;  with  a  mechanical  compulsion  in  lower  spiritual 
education,  in  the  bringing  up  of  generation  after  genera- 
tion, in  which  the  supreme  and  decisive  fact  is  not  a  good 
confession,  but  conformity  to  tradition,  or  other  secondary 
causes.  Thus  the  Church  of  the  Eeformation,  though  on  a 
Confessional  basis,  has  brought  forth  motley  hordes  of  indi- 
vidual Evangelical  and  Rationalistic  Protestants,  bearing 
the  name  of  the  great  Reformer,  but  not  convinced  of  and 
confessing  the  Word  on  which  he  staked  his  all. 


UNIONISM   AND    CO  N  FE  S  S 1 0  N  A  LI  S  M .     855 


THE    SITUATION    I^'    AMERICA. 

Thus,  too,  America  while  she  was  spared  the  mixed  devel- 
opment issuing  from  a  combined  secular  and  spiritual  control, 
and  while  she  was  blessed  in  having  her  earliest  foundations 
laid  on  the  complete  Confessional  basis,  and  in  the  spirit  of 
j^ietism,  thus  escaping  many  of  the  suffocating  problems 
of  the  older  situation,  has  nevertheless  mingled  in  with  her 
own  faith  the  ideas  of  surrounding  beliefs,  and  absorbed 
mongrel  elements  from  current  Protestant  sources ;  and  in 
a  preference  for  and  syuipathy  with  the  common  uncon- 
fessional  Christianity  of  the  day,  has  not  been  either  con- 
vinced of  nor  borne  bold  and  unfailing  witness  to  the  Faith 
which  alone  is  the  justification  of  her  being,  and  in  which 
alone  she  can  live  without  fear  of  absorption.  But  Provi- 
dence so  ordained  that  the  Lutheranism  that  came  to  Amer- 
ica, and  that  survived,  was  not  that  of  a  State  Church,  but  of 
the  free ;  and  that  the  Faith  brought  here  as  a  basis  was  that 
of  the  Book  of  Concord. 

Rationalism,  unionism  and  nativism,  both  European  and 
American,  have  been  the  cause  of  the  bulk  of  the  trouble  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  Perhaps  the  most  in- 
sidious and  treacherous  of  these  ostensible  friends  has  been 
imionism.  It  was  the  working  of  an  imperceptible  unionism 
that  gradually  reduced  to  nothing  the  result  of  the  Swedish 
work  in  America,  and  lost  to  us  all  the  churches  on  the  Dela- 
Avare.  Muhlenberg,  as  we  have  seen,  had  not  set  his  foot 
on  the  shores  of  Pennsylvania  for  twenty-four  hours  before 
he  found  himself  in  the  conflict  of  his  life  against  a  gigantic 
plan  of  nuionism  to  absorb  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  in 
Pennsylvania.     His  fidelity  prevented  such  absorption. 

At  his  death,  it  is  sad  to  note  the  tragic  inroads  made  upon 
the  Church  in  America  by  these  three  causes,  inroads  from 
which  the  Church  did  not  recover  even  to  the  third  and  fourth 


856  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

generation;  but  which  at  last  have  given  way,  to  some  ex- 
tent, before  the  jwwer  of  the  unchanging  Confessional  Prin- 
ciple. 

DOGMATIC    SYSTEM    AND   THE    CONFESSION. 

We  are  not  bound  by  the  form  or  the  substance  of  the  Old 
Dogmaticians,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are  of  the  truth  and 
the  truth  binds  us.  But  the  truth  does  not  bind  the  believer : 
it  makes  him  free.  The  dogmaticians  are  voluntary  individ- 
ual testimonies,  elaborated  in  the  form  of  science,  valid  for 
those  who  gave  them  forth  and  for  those  who  accept  them. 
They  are  not  the  utterances  of  the  Church ;  howsoever  fully 
they  may  reflect  and  explain  the  Confessions  of  the  Church. 

The  Confessions  do  not  constrict  the  personal  utterance  of 
the  Christian  who  holds  fast  to  them.  IsTone  is  more  free 
than  he. '"  He  writes  out  of  the  assurance  of  faith,  which  is 
freedom.  The  acceptance  of  the  Confessions  does  not  hinder 
each  age  and  each  indivi(bial  from  gaining  its  ovm  apprehen- 
sion jrfresh,  and  fitting  itg  own  ])oint  of  view,  of  the  revealed 
Word  of  God.  The  more  such  adjustments  of  the  Christian 
consciousness  to  the  Gospel  the  better.  But  they  are  not  to 
be  adjustments  of  the  Gospel  to  the  individual  consciousness. 
They  are  not  to  run  alongside  the  Confessions  or  against 
them.  They  are  not  to  start  from  a  speculative  centre  or 
from  some  truth  in  Scripture  outside  the  clear  teachings  of 
God's  Word,  and  then  absorb  so  much  of  the  Gospel  as  fits 
in  with  the  theory. 

And  above  all,  Dogmatik  and  its  spirit  is  not  to  take  the 


="  The  Church  is  called  upon  not  to  enforce  blind  submission  to  what  it 
has  already  attained,  but  to  use  the  clear  truth  as  an  instrument  of  appeal 
to  consciences,  and  to  maintain  its  authority  by  persuasion,  and  not  by  ex- 
ternal force  of  any  kind.  "  The  Word  which  has  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  must  do  the  work,  or  nothing  in  the  universe  can  do  it.  I  will  preach, 
I  will  talk,  I  will  write  :  but  never  will  I  force  any  one  by  violence  "  (Luther, 
Er.  ed.,  28:  219).  "This  is  the  difference  between  the  two  forms  of  govern- 
ment :  The  godly  win  men  by  means  of  the  Word :  the  wicked  force  to  a 
prescribed  course  by  means  of  the  sword  "  (lb.,  12:  383).  "  Unser  Herr  Gott 
Ihut  nicht  Grosses  wit  Grwnlf"  (lb.,  57  :  32). — .Tacobs,  Svmmanj  Christinn 
Failh.   !>     409. 


UNIONISM   AND    CONFESSION ALISM.     857 

place  of  Confession  and  its  spirit.  After  all  Dogmatik  is  only 
a  use  of  the  truth  to  satisfy  or  to  instruct  the  intellectual  con- 
sciousness, whereas  Confession  is  that  use  of  the  truth  which 
Christ  expects  of  us.  Dogmatik  is  the  explanation  of  my 
o-\vn  mind,  or  of  what  I  think  to  be  the  mind  of  the  Church. 
Confession  is  the  affirmation,  the  testimony  of  that  which 
Christ  has  given  His  Church  to  proclaim,  and  for  which  it 
exists.  The  main  need  in  the  Church,  in  its  literature,  its 
institutions  and  its  teachings  is  not  the  satisfaction  of  the 
intellectual  consciousness,  but  the  Confession  of  tlie  Gospel. 

The  Church  needs  Confessors  first,  foremost  and  always. 
Christ  is  the  truth,  and  Christ  is  all  and  in  all.  Dogmati- 
cians,  critics,  scientists,  philosophers,  free,  fearless,  and  in 
the  position  of  the  latest  outlook  in  thought  and  knowledge 
are  needed  by  the  Church  in  every  age,  but  they  must  not 
take  the  place,  nor  fail  to  respect  the  place  which  belongs 
only  to  the  Confessional  Principle.  They  are  individual,  and 
are  in  addition  to,  not  instead  of  the  Church's  witness.  The 
Church's  official  work  is  that  of  testimony,  and  in  her  insti- 
tutions, writings,  and  pulpits,"  in  all  her  teachings,  she  can 
substitute  no  other  principle  for  this.  A  scientific  theology, 
a  critical  theology,  a  Biblical  theology,  a  historical  theology, 
an  apologetic  theology,  a  dogmatic  theology,  a  practical  the- 
ology are  each  and  all  necessary  and  helpful  to  the  Church, 
but  only  as  they  centre  in  a  Confessional  Theology. 

"  Any  man,  who  will  read  thoughtfully  the  history  of 
Rationalism  in  Europe,  and  of  the  Unionism  which  is  even 


"  And  indeed,  when  the  minister  sets  himself  above  the  congregation  as  a 

teaching  regent,  though  he  would  anxiously  appear  as  a  liberal,  under  tlit^ 
standard  of  freedom'  of  speech  ;  he  yet  arrogantly  degrades  his  people,  essentially 
entrenches  on  their  liberty  of  conscience,  and  whilst  he  refuses  to  bind 
himself  to  their  confession,  he  popishly  wishes  to  keep  them  bound  to  his  office. 
The  absolution  of  ministers  from  obligation  to  the  common  confession  of  the 
church,  leads  either  to  an  entire  dissolution  of  the  confessional  unity  of  the 
church  at  large,  and  especially  of  the  individual  congregations,  or  to  a 
ministerial  despotism  which  appears  wherever  the  congregation  and  the 
church  are  made  dependent  on  the  ministry,  when  the  ministry  at  the  same 
time  refuses  to  be  dependent  on  the  general  consciousness  and  confession  of 
the  church  and  congregation,  and  seelis  to  rule  with  unlimited  freedom. — 
Selss,   Ev.   Rev.    IV,   16. 


858  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

now  too  often  its  stronghold,  will  not  wonder  at  the  earnest- 
ness of  true  Lutheranism  in  maintaining  a  pure  confession. 
He  will  have  no  difficulty  in  comprehending  its  indisposition 
to  tolerate  indifferentism,  and  heresy,  under  the  guise  of 
union."  Even  Belial  himself,  to  use  the  expressive  phrase 
of  Dr.  Krauth  after  the  habit  of  Luther,  ''has  been  allowed 
to  take  shelter  under  the  hem  of  the  garment  of  Christ." 

A  "  wide-open  "  confession  has  filled  the  American  Prot- 
estant Churches,  Seminaries,  Universities  and  schools  of 
learning  with  heresy  to-day.  Congregationalism,  Presbyter- 
ianism,  Episcopalianism,  and  even  Methodism  glide  down  in 
faith  toward  the  valley  of  Unitarianism.  Modern  preaching 
and  teaching  does  not  draw  the  confessional  line,  even  at  this 
side  of  the  Cross  of  Christ.  It  is  now  almost  regarded  as  a 
s}Tnptom  of  fossilization  to  be  true  to  one's  confessional 
standard,  and  there  is  a  sting  in  being  termed  orthodox. 

The  critical  spirit  has  gone  beyond  gnawing  away  merely 
the  Confessions:  it  has  demanded  that  the  attitude  of  the 
Christian  to  the  authority  of  Scripture  itself  be  "wide-open." 

We  find  here  in  America,  within  a  generation  after  Dr. 
Krauth's  death,  the  beginning  of  what  Dr.  Krauth,  in  his 
day,  recorded  with  horror  of  Germany :  "The  Bible  was  flung 
after  the  Confession,  and  men  were  allowed  to  be  anything 
they  pleased  to  be.  The  less  Lutheran  they  w^ere  in  the  old 
sense  of  the  word,  the  more  were  they  Lutheran  in  the  new 
sense.  They  not  only  insisted  on  being  called  Lutherans,  but 
insisted  they  were  the  only  genuine  Lutherans,  Had  not 
Luther  disenthralled  the  human  mind  ?  Was  not  the  Refor- 
mation simply  nn  assertion  of  the  powers  of  human  reason? 
Would  not  Luther,  if  he  bad  only  been  so  happy  as  to  have 
lived  to  read  their  writings,  certainly  have  been  brought  over 
to  the  fullest  libertv?     Who  could  doubt  it?" 


CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    CONCOKD     A^B    HISTORICAL 
LtTHERANISM  IN  AMERICA. 

Luther  and  the  Discovery  of  America  Contemporary — Was  this  Providential  ? — 
The  Lutheran  Church  Coming  to  America — It  came  on  the  Basis  of  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Book  of  Concord — The  Swedes  on  the 
Delaware — Justus  Falckner — The  Palatine  Immigration  with  the  Savoy  Constitu- 
tion— John  Casper  Stoever — Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg — The  Book  of  Con- 
cord the  Foundation  of  all  Muhlenberg's  Churches — The  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania— The  Words  of  Melanchthon. 


D 


OES  God  order  the  world  in  Providence  ?  Was  the 
Protestant  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church — the  Church 
of  the  Reformation — included  in  His  ordering?  Is  it  a 
chance  that  Luther  and  the  New  World  were  contemporaries, 
that  the  one  was  horn  within  the  decade  in  which  the  other 
was  discovered  ?  First  came  Luther,  in  1483,  and,  on  his 
heels,  in  1492,  America.  A  German  in  every  fiber  of  his  be- 
ing, was  it  the  counsel  of  God  that  he  should  be  chiefly  for  the 
Germans,  and  that  his  work  should  abide  within  the  boundary 
of  the  Fatherland  ?  The  great  Englishman,  Thomas  Car- 
lyle,  is  not  of  that  opinion.  "  There  was  born  here,"  says 
Carlyle,  "  a  Mighty  Man,  whose  light  was  to  flame  as  the 
beacon  over  long  centuries  of  the  world  ;  the  whole  world  and 
its  history  was  waiting  for  this  man.'  .  .  What  were  all  Em- 
perors, Popes,  and  Potentates  in  comparison  ?"  ^ 

Is  it  not  the  very  hand  of  God  that  set  the  two  rising  aus]n- 
cious  stars  of  modern  life,  the  newly  discovered  Gospel  and 


>  Carlyle  is  cited  as  an  Englishman  and  a  Protestant  on  the  Reformed  side. 
'Thomas   Carlyle,   Lecture  on  Luther,   May   15th,    1S40. 

859 


860  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  newly  discovered  World,  Luther  and  America,  in  conjunc- 
tion? Born  and  reared  in  the  shadow  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church  and  Empire,  in  the  heart  of  the  old  World,  the  Church 
of  the  pure  Gospel,  of  Word  and  Sacrament,  was  intended  by 
God  to  be  transplanted  from  the  old  battlefields  of  Church  and 
State,  for  untrammeled  development — Catholic,  of  many 
races,  and  polyglot,  in  many  tongues, — to  shores  free  from 
the  alliance  of  the  secular  and  the  spiritual  arm. 

Some  four  decades  after  Luther's  birth,  the  new  plant 
of  the  Gospel  bloomed  and  ripened  into  the  historical  Augus- 
tana.  Four  decades  later  it  bore  still  richer  and  more  perfect 
fruit  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Four  decades  after  the 
publication  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  God  wafted  the  first 
seed  of  this  new  Catholic  Evangelical  Conservative  faith  to 
the  shores  of  America.  It  perished  amid  the  snows  and  the 
ice  of  the  north. 

After  two  more  decades,  new  seeds  were  borne  hither,  some 
to  the  Island  of  Manhattan,  and  others  to  the  shores  of  the 
Delaware,  and  a  chain  of  churches  arose  along  that  river 
and  its  tributary.  Four  decades  later  still,  shortly  after  the 
arrival  of  William  Penn,  the  first  services  of  the  Protest- 
antism that  is  Catholic — of  Lutheranism — were  held  here 
in  the  English  tongue,  that  is,  in  the  language  that  was  des- 
tined to  become  the  Catholic  language  of  the  T^ew  World. 

Four  decades  later  still,  the  great  German  Protestant 
immigrations  reached  this  country,  and  with  them  the  first 
organizer  of  Lutheran  Churches  in  Pennsylvania.  In  sev- 
eral decades  more  came  the  general  organizer  and  patriarch 
of  the  Church,  under  the  direction  of  Halle,  who  established 
sound  doctrine  and  true  piety,  and  whose  w©rk,  seeking  early 
touch  and  union  with  the  earlier  Swedish  Church,  issued  in 
the  first  general  Church  body,  Lutheran  in  doctrine  and 
American  in  principle,  in  the  ^ew  World. 

Forty  years  after  the  organization  of  this  first  ]\rinis- 
terium  of  IN'orth  America,  which  centred  in  the  general 
territory  of  Pennsylvania,  came  the  establishment  of  a  second 


CONFESSIONS   IN   AMERICA.  861 

general  body  in  ^ew  York  State;  and  four  decades  later 
still  came  the  first  English  general  body.  And  as  the  first 
seeds  of  the  new  faith  in  1517,  and  its  first  Confession  in 
1530,  did  not  complete  the  development  of  the  pure  Lutheran 
Faith,  so,  neither  did  the  first  seeds  of  congregations  in 
the  Seventeenth  Century,  or  of  the  general  bodies  in  the 
Eighteenth  and  Nineteenth  Centuries,  complete  the  plan 
of  God  with  reference  to  this  continent.  Wonderful  immi- 
gration into  the  heart  of  our  laud,  and  four  decades  of 
testing,  in  attempting  to  take  over  the  faith  of  the  fathers, 
unaltered  and  unadulterated,  into  the  tongue  of  the  children, 
brings  us  to  the  condition  of,  the  Church  within  the  memory 
of  many  still  living. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  chapter  to  show  that  the  transplan- 
tation of  Lutheranism  from  the  Old  World  to  Xorth  America 
was  on  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Concord  and  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession. 

The  services  held  on  Hudson's  Bay  in  1619  were  unfruit- 
ful, but  those  held  on  the  Delaware  from  1038  on,  together 
with  those  held  in  1657,  and  earlier,  in  Xew  York, 
were  on  the  basis  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession. 
The  first  English  Lutheran  services  in  America,  in  168-1, 
were  held  by  a  minister  whose  copy  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  still  extant,  and  it  is  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. The  Lutheran  ministers  in  the  Seventeenth  Century 
and  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  were  ministers  set  to  preach 
the  doctrine  of  the  L^naltered  Augsburg  Confession;  and 
wherever  John  Casper  Stoever  or  Henry  Melchior  Muhlen- 
berg preached,  their  teaching  and  their  work  were  founded  on 
the  Unaltered  Confession.  Justus  Falckner,  the  first  faithful 
Protestant  pastor,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  any  denomination  to 
be  ordained  in  America,  a  German,  ordained  in  a  Swedish 
Church,  in  order  to  become  the  pastor  of  a  Dutch  Congrega- 
tion, adhered  faithfully  to  the  anti-Calvinistic  basis  of  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession. 

Let  us  examine  these  striking  facts  somewhat  more  in 

58 


862  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

detail,  from  the  beginning  onward,  and  see  if  they  be  well 
founded. 

The  Constitution  of  the  congregation  at  Amsterdam, 
framed  within  ten  years  of  the  publication  of  the  Book  of 
Concord,  adopted  as  early  as  1597  (and  which,  with  and 
through  that  of  St.  Mary's  of  Savoy  in  London,  adopted  in 
161)5)  formed  tlie  basis  of  the  Const 'ifutlon  of  our  American 
congregations,  in  its  First  Part  and  First  Article,  stipulates 
as  follows  :— 

"  The  pastors  of  this  congregation  shall  regulate  and  de- 
termine all  their  teaching  and  preaching  by  the  rule  of  the 
divine  Word,  the  biblical,  prophetical  and  apostolical  writ- 
ings, and  according  to  our  Symbolical  Books  to  wit,  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  delivered  to  Charles  V. 
Anno  30,  the  Apology,  the  Smalkald  Articles,  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  together  with  both  Catechisms  of  Luther 
throughout,  and  shall  not  teach  or  preach  anything  contrary 
to  the  same,  be  it  privately  or  publicly,  nor  shall  they  intro- 
duce or  use  new  phrases  (form*  of  statement)  which  are  at 
variance  with  the  same,  or  contradict  them.  In  like  manner 
in  all  points  in  dispute  between  ns  and  others,  they  shall  be 
guided  and  governed  by  the  aforesaid  Scriptures  and  also  the 
aforesaid  Symbolical  Books,  and  shall  decide  and  judge  them 
by  these  alone,  and  shall  plainly  declare  the  foundation  and 
understanding  thereof  to  the  congregation.  * 

Fifteen  years  after  the  completion  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
the  States  of  Sweden  subscribed  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession.^  This  was  in  1503,  one  year  before  Gustavus 
Adolphus  was  born.     Six  years  after  the  death  of  the  mili- 


^Lutn.    Ch.   Rev.,  VI,   p.   199. 

■*  In  1647  the  Reichstag  at  Stockholm  acknowledged  the  Formula ;  In  1663 
a  decree  of  the  Swedish  Church  was  to  the  same  effect ;  and  in  1686  the 
Council  of  Upsala  bound  the  Swedish  Church  as  follows :  "  In  our  kingdom 
and  in  the  lands  belonging  thereto,  all  shall  confess  only  and  alone  the 
Christian  doctrine  and  faith,  which  is  founded  upon  the  Prophetical  and 
Apostolical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  is  comprised  in 
the  three  chief  symbols,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian,  as 
well  as  in  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  composed  in  the  year  1530, 
received  in  1593  in  the  Council  of  Upsala,  and  explained  in  the  entire  so- 
called   '  Book  of  Concord."  " 


CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  863 

tary  hero  of  Protestantism  on  the  battlefield  at  Liitzen,  Giis- 
tavus'  prime  minister  Oxenstiern  sent  to  our  shores  the  first 
colony  of  Swedes,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  favorite  plan  of 
Gustavns,  which  he  advocated  on  German  soil  only  a  few 
days  before  his  death.  One  great  object  of  Gustavns  in  his 
colonization  project  was  to  plant  the  Christian  religion  among 
the  heathen;  and  the  missionary  idea  was  always  prominent 
in  the  spirit  and  in  tlie  instrnctions  of  the  line  of  Lutheran 
pastors  that  came  from  Sweden  to  the  first  settlements  on  the 
Delaware.  The  first  services  held  in  these  primeval  forests, 
just  sixty  years  after  the  ado]ition  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
were  on  the  basis  of  its  full  Lutheran  Confession.  When 
Governor  John  Printz  came  over  in  1643,  he  had  instruc- 
tions to  see  that  divine  service  be  zealously  conducted  ac- 
cording to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  but  that 
members  of  the  Reformed  religion  be  allowed  religious  free- 
dom ;  that  the  youth  be  instructed  and  trained  in  the  fear  of 
the  Lord,  and  that  Christianity  be  spread  among  the  Indians. 
His  minister,  Campanius,  diligently  carried  out  these  instruc- 
tions, even  to  the  holding  of  the  daily  Lutheran  Matin  and 
Vesper  services  and  to  the  translating  of  Luther's  Small 
Catechism  into  the  language  of  the  American  Indian. 

In  New  Netherlands  the  authorities  had  received  instruc- 
tions "to  allure  the  Lutherans  to  the  Dutch  Churches  and  to 
matriculate  them  in  the  Public  Reformed  Religion."  In 
1640  a  law  was  passed,  prohibiting  any  other  religion  except 
the  Reformed,  which  Stuyvesant  'in  the  name  of  God  and 
the  Dutch  "West  India  Company'  attempted  to  carry  out  in 
1647.  But  in  1649,  on  October  8th,  a  petition  reached 
Amsterdam  from  the  members  of  the  "Church  of  the  Unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession  in  the  New  Netherlands."  In 
1656  the  congregation  appealed  from  Stuyvesant  as  follows, 
*'We,  the  united  members  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, here  in  the  New  Netherlands,  have  been  obedient  to 
your  Honors'  prohibitions,"  etc.  The  West  India  Company 
concluded  "that  the  doctrine  of  the  L^naltered  Augsburg  Con- 


8G4  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

fession  might  be  tolerated  in  the  West  Indies  and  the  New 
Netherland."  But  when  the  Lutheran  minister,  Goetwasser, 
arrived,  the  Reformed  ministers  demanded  his  return  to  Hol- 
land. In  166-i  Governor  Nichols  granted  the  Lutherans  per- 
mission to  send  for  ministers  and  to  "freely  and  publiquely 
exercise  divine  worship  according  to  their  consciences."  ^  We 
see  here  how  the  first  beginnings  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
New  York  City  were  founded  on  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  that  its  very  existence  was  involved  in  a  life 
and  death  struggle  in  which  the  Reformed  Protestantism  of 
that  day  was  determined  not  to  tolerate  it. 

Thus  were  the  earliest  Lutheran  settlements  in  America 
planted  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  other  Symbolical  Books.  Half  a  century 
later  when  the  permanent  memorials  of  this  earliest  Luth- 
eranism,  the  Old  Swedes  Church  in  Wilmington  and  the 
Gloria  Dei  in  Philadelphia  were  erected,  clad  in  robe  and 
surplice,  three  Swedish  clergymen  arrived  from  Sweden,  and 
held  their  first  service  "  according  to  the  true  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith." 

When,  three  or  four  years  later,  another  pastor  was  brought 
over,  the  Archbishop  addressed  a  letter  of  the  date  of  July 
18th,  1701,  to  the  congregation,  making  it  their  pastor's  duty 
to  "  teach  God's  Word  purely  according  to  the  prophetic  and 
Apostolic  Scriptures  (the  language  of  the  Formula),  and  as 
it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  the  recognized  chief  symbols  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  and  its  other  Symbolical  Books." 
The  decree  of  Upsala  of  1593,  followed  by  decrees  of  1647, 
1663,  and  1686,  had  formally  placed  the  Swedish  Church 
upon  the  Book  of  Concord.  There  can  be  no  doubt  at  all, 
then,  as  to  the  Confessional  nature  of  this  earliest  Lutheran- 
ism  that  was  planted  on  the  shores  of  our  American  World. 

Justus  Falckner,  the  first  Protestant  minister  to  be  or- 
dained in  America,  and  pastor  of  the  Lutheran  congregation 


History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  PennsylvanUi,   (Schmauk)    I, PP-    19-21. 


CONFE.SSIOXS   IX    AMERICA.  8«5 

at  New  York  and  Albany  from  1703  on,  whose  "Groudlycke 
onderricht "  is  the  first  Lutheran  text-book  published*  in 
America,  and  is  referred  to  by  Valentine  Loscher  as  a  "  Com- 
pendium Doctrinae  Anti-Calvinianum,"  declares  that  the 
contents  of  the  book  are  to  be  taken  in  strict  conformity  with 
the  teachiflgs,  Confession  and  Faith  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
to  which  his  grandparents  belonged. 

The  immigration  that  came  into  New  York  and  Pennsyl- 
vania a  few  years  later,  with  Joshua  Kocherthal  at  its  head, 
brought  with  it  St.  Mary's,  London,  Kirchen-Ordnung  of 
"The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,"  whose  first  and  sec- 
ond articles  are  a  reproduction  of  the  phraseology  of  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  and  whose  second  article  declares  that  "the 
pastors  shall  completely  and  thoroughly  (  "ganzlich  und 
durchgehends,  nichts  aber  wider  dieselbe  ")  teach  and  con- 
fess according  to  our  '  Symbolical  Books,'  namely.  The  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession  delivered  to  Emperor  Charles 
in  1530  [to  doubly  insure  the  Invariata]  ;  the  Apology, 
the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  to- 
gether with  both  Catechisms  of  Luther."  This  is  the  solid 
doctrinal  foundation  on  which  the  German  Palatine  immi- 
gration of  the  early  part  of  the  Eighteenth  Century  into 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania  was  founded. 

When,  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  later,  John  Casper 
Stoever  arrived  in  the  wilds  of  Pennsylvania  and  organized 
the  first  German  congregations,  and,  as  "the  Evangelical 
Lutht'ran  Pfarrlien-,"  gathered  congregations  in  all  the 
early  settlements,  he  planted  them,  one  and  all,  upon  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  Stoever  was  a  stern  Lu- 
theran of  the  most  uncompromising  kind,  and  the  churches 
founded  by  him  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania  were  on  the  basis 
of  a  Lutheranism  of  the  stricter  sort.  In  a  certain  sense,  the 
Lutheranism  of  this  land  founded  upon  th<i  Unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  a  more  straight  and  uncompromising  Lu- 
theranism  even    than   that    founded    upon   the    designation 


«  By  William  Bradford,   New  York,  1708, 


866  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

of  all  the  Symbols  of  the  Church.  For  the  foundation  of  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  was  a  polemic  antithesis  to 
every  sort  and  kind  of  Melanchthonianism  whatsoever,  where- 
as the  Lutheranism  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  was  simply  the  latter's  harmonic  antithesis. 

This  fact,  with  the  need  of  a  short  term  for  common  use, 
explains  the  historical  significance  of  the  early  usage  of  the 
phrase  "  Augsburg  Confession  "  in  our  Church  in  America. 
C.  F.  SchaefFer,  in  his  report  to  the  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania in  1853, '  after  referring  to  the  preface  of 
Thomasius'  work  on  the  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church,  declares  "  that  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord is  as  completely  a  part  of  the  Confession  of  the  Church, 
as  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself,  or  any  other  s;)Tnbol  is 
part  of  it."     He  then  continues: — 

"  The  prominence  M^hich,  in  the  church  in  the  United 
States,  has  often  been  given  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
the  frequent  omission  of  the  names  of  the  succeeding  Symbol- 
ical Books,  might  produce  the  erroneous  impression  that  the 
former  possessed  a  higher  rank  or  greater  authority  in  that 
part  of  the  church  which  is  found  in  America,  than  the  latter, 
unless,  in  addition  to  the  explanations  which  have  already 
been  given  above,  respecting  the  origin  of  the  historical  name 
of  the  "  church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  the  following 
facts  are  also  properly  appreciated ;  they  clearly  establish 
this  principle:  That  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  whole  body  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  so  that, 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  those  icho  formerly  named  it 
alone,  nercrfhclrss  understood  it  to  imply  and  include  the 
other  confessional  irriiings  vnfh  which  it  is  inseparably  con- 
nected." ISTot  only  the  illustrations  given  by  Dr.  SchaefFer, 
but  all  others  show  that  the  Lutheran  Church  founded  in 
Pennsylvania,  ISTew  York,  l^ew  Jersey,  North  Carolina  and 
Georgia  was  founded  upon  the  complete  Lutheran  principle, 
and  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  never  excluded  or  reduced 


'' Ev.  Rev.,  V,  p.  205,  206. 


confe;sswns  in  America.         ser 

the  remaining  symbols,  but  represented  them ;  until  we  reach 
the  later  stage  of  Rationalism. 

The  congregations  planted  upon  the  Stoever  foundation  in- 
clude those  in  Lancaster  and  Lancaster  County,  York  and 
York  County,  Dauphin  County,  Lebanon  County,  Berks 
County  and,  to  some  extent,  Chester,  ]\Iontgomery  and  Phil- 
adelphia Counties,  Pennsylvania.  These  foundations  are  all 
on  Lutherauism  of  the  strictest  sort. 

As  soon  as  Muhlenberg  landed  in  Philadelphia  in  1742, 
he  found  there  the  beginning  of  a  wide  interdenominational 
union  movement  which  had  taken  possession  of  the  congre- 
gation to  which  he  had  been  called.  Its  head  was  the  "  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Inspector  and  Pastor  at  Philadelphia,"  who 
adhered  to  "  Luther's  evangelical  doctrines  as  contained  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  a7id  the  Augsburg  Confession/' '  and  w^ho 
"  showed  his  earnestness  by  publishing  an  edition  of  Luther's 
Small  Catechism/' '  So  nearly  had  this  adherent  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  gained  control  of  embryonic  Lutheran- 
ism  in  Pennsylvania,  that  the  historian  Acrelius  (p.  248) 
says,  "  When  Muhlenberg  came  to  the  country,  Count  Zin- 
zendorf  was  in  a  fair  way  to  bring  under  him  the  whole  Ger- 
man population." 

Muhlenberg  at  once  proceeded  to  (what  he  supposed  wasj 
a  private  conference  with  this  lil)eral  Lutheran  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  but  "  he  found  himself  confronted  by  all 
the  formalties  of  a  trial."  "  And  even  after  he,  at  a  regular 
Lutheran  Service,  had  exhibited  his  credentials,  including 
his  call  and  ordination  certificate,  and  the  papers  from  Provi- 
dence and  Xew  Hanover,  and  had  obtained  tlie  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  call  from  the  officers  of  the  Philadelphia  congre- 
gation, Zinzendorf  would  not  surrender  the  church  record 
until  the  courts  compelled  him  to  do  so. 

Such  was  the  ominous  conflict,  between  a  professed  ad- 


'  Life  of  Zinzendorf ,  p.  42. 

"Jacobs,  Hist,  of  The  Luth.   Ch.,  p.   203. 

"76.,   p.    218. 


868  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

herent  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  confessor  of  the 
complete  Lutheran  faith,  with  which  the  larger  ecclesiastical 
history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country  opened.  For 
Muhlenberg  was  a  minister  "  according  to  the  call  and  rule 
given  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  the  sum 
of  which  is  contained  in  the  three  symbols — the  Apostles', 
!Nicene,  and  Athanasian — in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  A.  D. 
1530,  laid  before  Emperor  Charles  V.  in  the  Apology  of  the 
same,  in  Dr.  Luther's  Large  and  Small  Catechisms,  in  the 
articles  subscribed  in  the  Smalcald  Convention  and  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  written  A.  D.  1576,  on  controverted 
points  of  doctrine."  " 

On  Muhlenberg's  way  to  America,  derogatory  reports  con- 
cerning his  Pietism  had  preceded  him  to  the  city  of  Han- 
over, where,  however,  he  was  invited  by  the  president  of  the 
Consistory  to  preach,  after  which  a  member  of  the  Consistory, 
who  had  remonstrated  against  his  preaching,  a  jurist,  said 
that  the  sermon  "  had  been  in  agreement  with  the  Formula 
of  Concord." 

Thus  Muhlenberg's  arrival  in  1742,  brought  to  America 


^'  Muhlenberg's  Ordination  Certificate,  v.  Litth.  Ch.  Rev.  VII,  p.  28,  Article 
on  "Conservatism  of  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  very  language  of  the  confessional  basis  of  this 
Certificate  of  Ordination  is,  with  two  exceptions,  a  condensation  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  introduction  to  the  Epitome  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  (For  the 
phrase  "  the  Augsburg  Confessiou ,  A.  D.  1530  laid  before  the  Emperor  Charles 
V."  compare  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord,  Jacobs  ed.,  p.   14.) 

The  Certificate  is  of  the  date  of  1739,  and  declares,  on  the  part  of  the 
Leipzig  Theological  Faculty,  that  "  we  examined  him  with  care  and  con- 
vinced ourselves  that  he  received  and  took  hold  of  the  sum  and  substance  of 
the  Christian  doctrines  in  a  proper  manner,  reverently  and  firmly  adopted 
that  purity  of  the  Gospel  which  our  Church  professes  with  one  voice  and 
spirit  in  harmony  with  the  Catnolio  Church  of  Chrii^t.  and  that  he  abhors 
all  fanatical  opinions  of  older  and  of  more  recent  date,  such  as  the  errors 
of  the  Papists,  Anabaptists,  Sacramentarians  [Reformed],  which  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  had  condemned.  He  also  promises 
that  in  matters  of  doctrine  he  ivould  prove  himself  firm  and  constant." 

Following  the  enumeration  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  the  Certificate  says, 
"  He  solemnly  promised  that  he  would  propose  to  his  hearers  what  would 
be  conformed  and  consentient  to  these  writings,  and  that  he  would  never 
depart  from  the  sense  which  they  give.  And  this  sacred  consense  we  intend, 
with  the  help  of  God,  faithfully  to  defend  in  all  our  churches,  and  never  to 
adopt  any  documents  conflicting  tcith  these  doctrines.  .  .  .  We  further  ad- 
monish the  said  Henry  Melchior  Miihlenberger  and  the  congregation  en- 
trusted to  his  care  that  they  retain  the  purity  of  the  heavenly  doctrine.  .  .  We 
also  admonish  them  that  they  remember  the  divine  prospect  to  live  in  accord 
and  union  ivith  other  churches  of  the  same  sound  faith." 


CONFESSIONS   IN   AMEEICA.  869 

anew  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  \Yhen  he  built 
the  old  Augustus  Church  at  Trappe,  two  years  later,  he 
placed  it  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession.  ''I  publicly  state,  you  know  for  what  objects  this 
Augustus  Church  and  schoolhouse  were  founded,  built  and 
designated  forever  in  the  writings  of  the  cornerstone  and  in 
other  instruments,  and  to  secure  that  object  you  and  your 
successors  should  strive,  namely,  that  our  holy  Evangelical 
doctrine  according  to  the  apostles  and  prophets  and  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  together  with  the  Holy  Sac- 
raments, he  continued  to  the  latest  fiosterityy 

When  the  next  minister,  Brunnholtz,  came  in  1Y45,  his 
call  was  "  to  teach  the  Word  of  God  in  public  and  in  private, 
pure  and  incorrupt,  according  to  the  rule  and  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  also  of  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church."  His  ordination  pledge  had 
been :  "  To  be  faithful  to  the  Word  of  God  even  as  the  same 
is  set  forth  in  the  three  chief  Symbols,  and  also  specifically 
in  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  true  Lutheran  Church,  to 
wit,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  its  Apology,  the 
Smalcald  Articles,  the  two  catechisms  of  Luther,  and  the 
special  Formula  of  Concord,  all  dra^^^l  with  great  diligence 
out  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  that  I  shall,  not  only  for 
myself,  by  the  help  of  God,  abide  steadfast  in  the  same 
until  I  die,  but  also  labor  with  the  utmost  diligence  to  build 
up  the  congregations  which  God  may  commit  to  my  care, 
according  to  this  rule." 

In  this  same  year  the  church  at  Germantown  was  com- 
pleted, bearing  the  inscription  "  Augustanae  confessioni  baud 
variatae  ejusque  occonomiae." 

When,  in  1Y48,  Muhlenberg  elaborated  an  'agende'  for  the 
Church  in  this  land,  it  was  on  the  basis  of  the  strict  Savoy 
Kirchen  Ordnung  already  mentioned.  When  in  1748  his  first 
large  church,  old  St.  Michael's,  in  Philadelphia,  was  conse- 


"  HaUische  Nachrichten,  p.   1139. 


870  -THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

crated,  at  the  organization  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, public  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  "  that  the  foun- 
dation stones  of  this  Church  were  laid  with  the  intention 
that  in  it  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  doctrine  should  be  taught 
according  to  the  foundation  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  and 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  all  the  other  Sym- 
bolical Books."  "  Then  the  whole  Church  and  its  parts, 
the  pulpit,  the  Baptismal  font  and  altar  were  again  conse- 
crated to  the  use  of  the  one  saving  Word  and  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ments, according  to  our  Symbolical  Books."  " 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
the  first  candidate  for  ordination  was  examined  by  Brunn- 
holtz,  Handschuh,  and  Hartwig,  and  was  asked,  "  whether 
our  Evangelical  Lutheran  is  the  only  saving  and  justifying 
faith,  and  upon  what  Scriptural  foundations  it  rests."  The 
answer  among  other  things  contained  the  following:  "Yea 
and  Amen,  1,  because  it  teaches  the  ^Yord  of  God  in  its  truth 
and  purity;  2,  because  we,  as  the  children  of  God  lead  holy 
lives  in  accordance  with  it.  If  we  examine  our  Symbolical 
Books,  which  contain  the  principles  of  our  doctrine  on  reli- 
gion, we  will  find  that  they  are  taken  from  the  AVord  of  God 
and  suhskmiiated  hy  the  Word  of  God."  Before  the  Ordina- 
tion Kurtz  signed  the  following  pledge,  "  To  teach  nothing 
else  publicly  or  privately  in  my  congregation  except  what  ac- 
cords with  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and  to  this  end  diligently  to 
study  the  same." 

In  1750  IMuhlenberg  and  Brunnlioltz  inserted  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Augustus  Congregation  at  the  Trappe,  the 
earliest  written  constitution  of  these  men,  "  that  in  the  Au- 
gustus Church  and  school,  the  Evangelical  doctrine,  accord- 
ing to  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  and  our 
Symbolical  Books,  be  perpetuated  to  our  descendants." 

In  1760,  at  the  Ministerium  of  Lancaster,  Paul  Bryzelius 
applied   for   admission   to  the  Ministerium,   and  made  the 


"Muhlenberg's  Report,   1748,  HaUische  Nachriclitcn,  M.   and  S.   pp.   392-393. 


CONFESSIOXS    IN   AMERICA.  871 

declaration  that  "I  herewith  promise  to  conform  in  all  my 
sermons,  public  and  private  instruction  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  to  our  Symbolical  Books." 

When,  in  1761,  Lucas  Raus  made  charges  against  Muhlen- 
berg, Muhlenberg  not  only  declares  that  Raus  himself  did 
not  accept  "  the  Word  of  God  and  our  Symbolical  Books, 
though,  in  his  pledge  given  before  his  ordination,  he  had, 
with  mouth,  hand,  and  seal,  solemnly  promised  that  he  would 
do  so;"  but  he  says,  "  I  herewith  challenge  Satan  and  all  his 
servile  lying  spirits  to  prove  against  me  the  least  point  that 
would  be  repugnant  to  the  teachings  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets  and  our  Symbolical  Books." 

When,  in  1769,  the  dedication  of  the  great  Zion  Church 
in  Philadelphia,  during  the  meeting  of  the  Ministerium 
there,  took  place,  jMuhlouberg  said:  "Hereby  it  is  dedicated 
to  the  Triune  God,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit!  for  the 
use  of  the  German  Evangelical  Lutheran  congregation,  which 
confesses  the  one  Evangelical  doctrine  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  the  two  Holy  Sacraments  by 
Christ,  according  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and 
other  S\Tnbolical  Books." 

In  the  Certificate  of  Ordination  given  by  the  IMinisteriura 
of  Pennsylvania  to  J.  Christian  Lepsius  in  1774  and  pre- 
served by  Muhlenberg,  we  find  the  doctrine  based  upon  "  the 
Three  Symbols,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  and  its 
Apology,  the  Small  and  Large  Catechisms  of  Luther,  and  the 
other  Symbolical  Books ;"  and  the  pledge  of  Rev.  Lepsius  is 
to  bind  himself  to  teach  the  doctrine  "  agreeable  to  and  with 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  rest  of  the  Sym- 
bolical Books  of  the  Evangelical  Church." 

In  1783  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  required  of  Mr. 
Hinkel,  prior  to  permitting  him  preach,  that  he  show  a  reg- 
ular call,  and  that  he  agree,  "  to  preach  the  Word  of  God  in 
its  purity  according  to  Law  and  Gospel,  as  it  is  explained 
in  its  chief  points  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  other 
Symbolical  Books." 


872  THE   LUTHEUAN    CONFESSIONS. 

And  when,  finally,  in  1781,  Muhlenberg  prepared,  and  the 
"  Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  in  North  America " 
adopted,  its  constitution,  that  instrument  declares:  "Every 
minister  professes  that  he  holds  the  Word  of  God  and  our 
Symbolical  Books  in  doctrine  and  life  .  .  .  Every  minister 
uses  the  Liturgy  which  has  been  introduced." 

As  for  the  English  Lutheran  Church,  when  in  1795,  Dr. 
Kunze,  our  first  English  Theological  Professor,"  appended 
his  "Account  of  the  Lutheran  Church"  to  the  first  edition  of 
his  English  Lutheran  HjTnn  Book,  he  described  the  confes- 
sional basis  of  the  Church  as  follows :  "The  Symbolical  Books 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  are  1.  The  Augsburg  Confession; 
2.  The  Apology  or  defence  of  it ;  3.  The  Smalcaldean  Arti- 
cles; 4.  The  larger,  5.  The  smaller  Catechism  of  Luther; 
6.  The  Formula  of  Concord."  " 

We  see  thus,  how  thoroughly  and  carefully  the  original 
foundations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  IN^orth  America  were 
laid  with  reference  to  an  avoidance  of  Melanchthonian  errors, 
and  upon  the  full  and  complete  Confessional  principle  of  the 
Church  as  expressed  in  its  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 


"  Dr.  Kunze  was  the  father  of  English  Lutheranism  in  America.  He  was 
not  only  the  foe  of  German  Rationalism,  but  he  foresaw  the  process  of  Angli- 
cization  that  must  take  place  in  our  country,  and  attempted  to  prepare  for  it. 
He  was  Professor  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  in  Columbia,  then 
King's  College,  New  York.  He  was  the  first  Lutheran  pastor  who  made 
provision  for  regular  English  services  ;  he  translated  Luther's  Catechism  into 
English  ;  in  1795  he  published  the  first  English  Lutheran  Hymn-book  ;  and  he 
educated  the  first  English  Lutheran  pastors  in  America.  He  attempted  to 
begin  the  first  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary  in  this  country,  but  was  un- 
successful  because   of   the   Revolutionary   War. 

Dr.  Kunze's  own  ordination  vow  was  no  exception  to  the  rule,  but  as  was 
the  ease  with  all  the  other's,  included  the  Formula  of  Concord  : 

"  I  will  not  only  for  myself  abide  by  the  pure  and  unadulterated  Word  of 
God,  as  explained  and  set  forth  in  the  three  Ecumenical  Creeds,  and  es- 
pecially in  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Smalcald 
Articles,  the  two  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Form  of  Concord,  but  that  I 
Will  also  faithfully  and  conscientiously  teach  the  congregations  committed 
to  me  by  God  in  accordance  with  these  Confessions." — Nicum,  The  Doctrinal 
Development  of  the  New  York  Ministerium,  Luth.  Ch.  Rev.,  VI,  p.  73. 

*"  As  our  work  is  written  in  devotion  to  the  true  Lutheran  Faith,  and  not 
In  the  interests  of  any  Church  Body,  the  story  of  the  Book  of  Concord  and  its 
relation  to  the  Church  in  America  is  brought  to  an  end  here.  It  might 
readily  be  continued  from  this  point  to  the  present,  should  such  a  narrative 
become  desirable  or  necessary.  We  will,  however,  mention  the  fact  that  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  of  1818  directs  that  churches  be 
consecrated   on  the   "  Unaltered   Augsburg   Confession." 


CONFESSIONS   IN   AMERICA.  873 

and  the  other  Symbolical  Books ;  and  how  the  favorable  in- 
fluence of  the  Formula  of  Concord  entered  into  the  constitu- 
tional structure  of  our  early  congregational  life." 

We  do  not  see  how  the  historic  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, in  whatever  ecclesiastical  connection  it  may  be  found, 
could  be  asked  to  set  aside  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  her 
Confession.  But  if  such  request  should  be  made,  Melanch- 
thon  has  given  the  reply  thereto.  He  says,  "We  cannot 
abandon  truth  that  is  manifest  and  necessary  to  the  Church. 
\Yherefore  we  believe  that  troubles  and  dangers  for  the  glory 
of  Christ  and  the  good  of  the  Church  should  be  endured. 
.  .  .  For  it  is  undeniable  that  many  topics  of  Christian 
doctrine,  whose  existence  in  the  Church  is  of  the  greatest 
moment,  have  been  brought  to  view  by  our  theologians,  and 
explained."  ' 


"  The  brief  statement  given  here  by  no  means  exhausts  the  subject  under 
discussion ;  and  the  writer  has  for  years  been  gathering  material  for  a  full 
presentation  of  the  evidence  on  this  important  subject  which,  at  some  day, 
he  hopes  to  be  able  to  commit  to  print  in  final  form. 

The  confessional  foundations  in  Georgia  and  in  North  Carolina  were  on  the 
same    basis. 

"  Apology,  76. 


CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

THE  COATFESSIOXAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  CONCORD  AND  AMERICAN 

PROTESTANTISM. 

Sources  of  Spiritual  Authority — The  Relation  of  Spiritual  Forces — The  Confes- 
sional Principle  a  Balance — The  Confessional  Principle  and  Liberality — Is  the 
Confessional  Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  Accepted  in  all  Parts  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  ? — Is  the  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession that  of  the  Book  of  Concord  ? — What  an  ex  animo  Confession  of  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession  Involves. 

SOURCES    OF    SPIRITUAL    AUTHORITY. 

OF  the  four  imaginable  sources  of  spiritual  authority, 
some  thinkers,  institutions,  denominations  and  sects 
accept,  if  they  do  not  officially  confess,  Reason,  that  is  Nature 
apprehended  by  the  mind  as  Law,  as  the  ultimate  arbiter. 
The  truths  of  history,  among  which  all  documentary  sources, 
including  Scripture,  are  reckoned ;  and  the  powers  of  tradi- 
tion, among  which  all  organic  sources,  including  the  Church, 
are  placed,  will  give  way,  in  ultimate  decision,  to  that  ex- 
isting order  of  Law  and  life  and  thought  in  which  we  find 
ourselves,  which  we  call  Nature,  and  whose  principles  are 
discovered  and  applied  by  Reason. 

The  material  with  which  these  Christians,  if  we  may  call 
them  such,  build  out  their  conviction,  faitli  and  testimony 
is  Scripture  and  the  experience  of  history  and  the  Church, 
but  the  plumb-line  with  which  they  test  the  material  is 
Reason. 

In  the  sphere  of  Faith,  Reason  is  always    our  most  sub- 

874 


AMERICAN   PROrESTAXTISM.  875 

tie  and  most  persistent  foe.  Reason  is  part  of  man's  inborn 
nature.  Faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  which  in  many  Christians 
has  not  succeeded  in  entirely  transforming  the  reason.  The 
greater  the  part  that  reason  has  been  accustomed  to  play  in 
the  ordering  of  our  Faith,  and  in  the  building  of  our  theo- 
logical views,  the  greater  its  influence  becomes  with  us  as 
a  habit.  Its  ways  are  ways  that  grow.  It  is  a  good  servant, 
but  a  bad  master.  Its  only  effectual  check  in  the  Church  is 
the  Confessional  Principle. 

Jn  the  American  Churches  Reason  has  enlarged  its  power 
— especially  in  many  of  the  evangelical  denominations — by 
an  unconscious  and  unperceived  gro^vth.  The  newer  liter- 
ature and  schools,  the  "historical  method"  (which  is  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Order  of  Nature  to  Faith  and  to  its  documents 
and  organisms),  the  influence  of  an  undenominational  and 
an  unevangelical  Christianty,  has  imperceptibly  wrought 
changes  in  the  conviction  and  the  daily  confession  of  Amer- 
ican Christianity.  A  century  and  a  half  ago  rationalism  was 
outside  the  American  Church.  A  century  ago  it  was  within 
the  Church  in  open  Socinian  forms.  To-day  it  is  within  the 
Church  and  in  Sunday-school  and  the  undenominational 
associations  of  Protestantism  more  subtly  in  evangelical 
forms. 

A  second  source  of  spiritual  authority  which  many  confess 
as  supreme  is  the  Visible  Church.  This  is  the  real  position 
of  Rome,  also  of  all  those  Protestants — though  they  be  Luth- 
erans,— who  look  to  their  Church  more  than  they  do  to  their 
Faith,  or  who,  at  least,  are  intensely  devoted  in  convic- 
tion and  confession  rather  to  the  organism  of  which  they 
are  members  than  to  the  principle  for  which  the  organism 
should  stand.  Those  who  confess  their  allegiance  to  what  the 
Church  says  and  does,  as  practically  final,  even  if  they 
imagine  themselves  to  be  adherents  of  the  most  liberal  Pro- 
testantism, are  standing  on  the  ground  of  Rome.  The  Papacy 
they  obey  is  the  uncrowned  and  shifting  one  of  the  Organi- 
zation they  venerate.      In  this   they   are   at  one  with  the 


876  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Modernists  in  the  Roman  world,  who  would  not  overthrow 
the  Church  as  the  supreme  source  of  authority,  but  only  its 
dogmatic  content,  and  who  introduce  the  new  (and  shifting) 
Weltanschauung  of  the  age,  as  being  a  subsidiary  and  obedi- 
ent servant  of  the  Church. 

A  third  source  of  authority  in  American  Protestantism  is 
composite.  Scripture  joined  witli  common  sense,  the  Word 
of  God  interpreted  by  the  intellectual  results  of  the  day, 
such  sifted  teachings  of  Scripture  as  commend  themselves  to 
the  best  thought  of  the  time,  or  as  approve  themselves  to  the 
most  sober  results  of  investigation,  are  accepted  as  the  source 
of  religious  authority.  This  is  the  position,  as  to  the  source 
of  authority,  of  the  majority  of  the  American  Protestant 
Churches — more  or  less — as  they  are  more  or  less  Evangeli- 
cal. 

To  the  confessors  of  a  composite  source  of  spiritual  author- 
ity belong  also  those  who  add  the  Church  to  Scripture  and  to 
Reason,  as  a  co-equal  principle. 

A  fourth  source  of  authority  is  found  by  other  American 
Churches  in  Scripture  alone.  And  of  these  there  are  some 
who  emphasize  Scripture  as  a  Book — the  Holy  Bible,  an 
authority  prescriptive,  legal,  to  be  confessed,  accepted  and 
obeyed  for  what  it  is  in  itself,  and  to  be  sundered  from  the 
organism  in  which  it  has  always  been  found. 

Others,  and  to  these  the  Book  of  Concord,  through  its 
Formula,  belongs,  accept  Scripture  as  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  life,  not  because  it  is  the  end  in  itself,  but  because 
Christ  is  there:  it  is  the  Word  of  God  bringing  salvation, 
a  Word  springing  up  from  and  given  to  not  merely  individ- 
uals, but  given  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  Book  of  Con- 
cord confesses  Scripture — which  is  the  Word  of  God — 
which  is  the  Gospel  of  Christ — which  is  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel — and  which  is  testified  to  in  tlie  great  Confessions 
that  have  been  pressed  out  of  the  tribulation  of  believing 
witnesses  in  history;  as  the  fruit  of  the  action  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  Word  upon  the  hearts  of  believers. 


AMERICAN    PROTESTANTISM.  877 

Thus,  with  the  Book  of  Concord,  "we  believe,  teach  and 
confess"  the  truth  in  the  Word,  which  is  Christ ;  and  the 
truth  in  the  Church's  Confession,  of  which  we  are  convinced 
that  it  is  the  reflex  and  effect  of  Christ  in  the  long  and  un- 
broken line  of  believers  who  constitute  His  communion  and 
flock.  This  Confessional  Principle,  though  it  may  separate 
us  from  contemporaries  of  the  present  moment  who  do  not 
find  the  whole  Christ  or  the  sure  Word  of  Christ  in  the 
Scripture,  connects  us  with  the  glorious  company  of  the 
Apostles,  the  goodly  fellowship  of  the  Prophets,  the  noble 
army  of  martyrs,  and  the  unbroken  line  of  true  confessors  in 
all  ages  of  the  holy  Church  throughout  the  world,  who  under 
whatsoever  name,  or  in  whatsoever  communion,  received  in 
good  and  honest  hearts  the  true  faitli  once  delivered  to  the 
saints;  and  constitute  the  one,  holy  Catholic  Christian 
Church,  which  confesses  the  ''one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one 
Baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.  Who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  us  all." 


THE  RELATION   OF  SriRITUAL  FORCES. 

Of  the  various  possible  spiritual  forces  described  in  the 
preceding  pages,  Reason  and  the  Scripture  may  be  termed 
centrifugal  forces,  i.  e.,  their  reaction  has  proven  to  be  varied, 
and,  under  Protestant  influences,  individualizing.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Church  and  the  Confessions  are  centripetal 
forces,  i.  e.,  their  action  has  proven  to  be  of  a  uniting  and 
crystallizing  character.  We,  as  Lutherans,  reject  one  centri- 
fugal force.  Reason,  and  surely  we  would  not  set  our  faith 
and  hope  on  the  first  centripetal  force  mentioned,  viz.,  the 
Church,  as  a  centre  of  authority. 

When  the  Confessions  are  disparaged,  as  the  Church's 
witness  to  Scripture,  there  is  no  centripetal  force  remaining, 
except  the  ecclesiastical  motive.  The  result  is  that  many 
Protestants,  thus  bereft  of  a  uniting  Confessional  power, 
must  resort  to  the  Church,  the  ecclesiastical  idea  and  fact, 

59 


878  THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

the  comnioii  naino  and  the  common  external  bonds  of  a  de- 
nomination, to  keep  them  together. 

As  Lutherans,  our  only  rule  of  authority  is  the  Scripture, 
which,  although,  in  its  historical  form,  it  be  centrifugal, 
nevertheless  becomes  centripetal  in  its  Confessional  form. 
Rome,  with  a  visible  centre  of  authority  in  the  Church  and 
in  the  vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  does  not  need  a  Confessional 
centre.  But  the  only  spinal  column  that  will  organize  and 
keep  the  Protestant  Church  of  the  future  together,  is  a  com- 
mon principle  from  Scripture  which  has  become  the  common 
principle  of  the  Church.  Therefore  also  the  Church  of 
the  Conservative  Reformation  lays  stress  upon  the  Confes- 
sions. 

A  sound  and  conservative  Confessional  Lutheranism  seeks 
to  maintain  the  balance  between  the  centripetal  and  centri- 
fugal forces,  which  draw  the  mind  of  the  Protestant  believer 
in  contrary  directions.  The  Confessional  Principle  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  releases  him  from  the  Church  as  a  source 
of  authority,  thus  preserving  Christian  liberty ;  and  does  not 
allow  Reason  to  become  a  source  of  authority,  thus  pre- 
serving Christian  Faith.  Our  Confessional  Principle  accepts 
the  Scripture  as  the  only  rule  of  Faith,  and  thus  preserves 
Christ ;  and  accepts  the  Confessions  as  the  reflex  of  Scripture, 
in  the  testimony  of  which  his  own  heart  joins,  and  thus 
preserves  the  Church. 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  PRINCIPLE  A  BALANCE. 

The  Confessional  Principle,  into  which  Scripture  and 
individual  conviction  or  assent  enter  as  elements,  which 
meet  together  in  the  Confession,  thus  becomes  the  balance 
between  rationalism  on  the  one  hand  and  ecclesiasticism  on 
the  other;  between  lawless  individualism  on  the  one  hand, 
and  tyrannical  external  authority  on  the  other;  between 
unprincipled  indifferentism  on  the  one  hand  and  intolerant 
bigotry  on  the  other. 


AMERl C  A  N   P It O  T E 8 T A N T I S M .  879 

Pure  Protestantism,  which  acknowledges  no  authority  but 
Reason,  or  Reason  and  Scripture,  will  not  hold  men  together 
in  an  abiding  union  in  a  visible  Church/  Indifferent  Prot- 
estantism, which-  reduces  faith  to  opinions,  and  exalts  unity, 
fraternity  and  fellowship  to  a  rule,  will  unite  and  maintain 
the  shell  of  Christianity  without  its  substance.  Federated 
Protestantism,  which  finds  its  authority  on  a  common  but 
not  clearly-determined  Scripture  ground,  with  common  but 
partial  and  not  clearly-determined  recognition  of  individual- 
ities in  faith ;  seeks  its  purpose  in  furthering  the  work  of  the 
visible  church ;  and  its  s])here  of  organization  in  a  temporary 
union  for  mutual  benefit,  looking  to  something  better,  and 
thus  draws  its  rule  in  part  from  Confession  and  in  part  from 
the  Church. 

But  Confessional  Protestantism,  taking  its  authority  from 
the  Word  of  God  alone,  as  reflected  in  the  testimony,  and  not 
in  the  organization,  of  the  Church;,  recognizing  the  priority 
of  conscience,  and  not  of  practical  plans,  is  the  only  unity 
that  stands  squarely  on  principle  and  conviction  of  the  truth 
and  yet  refrains  from  tyranny  of  organization. 

THE    CONFESSIONAL    PRINCIPLE    AND    LIBERALITY. 

Confessional  Protestantism  will  not  yield  principle  to  ex- 
pediency. It  will  not  extend  hands  as  brethren  at  Marburg, 
in  view  of  political  considerations,  and  continue  in  doctrinal 
difference,  private  dislike,  and  in  innuendo  and  the  petty 
spirit  of  proselytism.  It  will  be  tolerant  to  men,  but  not  to 
ambiguous  measures.  It  will  tolerate  hostile  convictions, 
but  not  falsehood.  It  will  respect  and  love  its  friend  and 
foe,  but  not  compromise  with  either.     It  will  be  tolerant  and 


^  "  In  vain  Protestants  seek  to  make  their  churches  as  solid  as  the  Roman. 
Their  basal  cause  of  existence  is  fatal  to  unity.  Acting  in  the  direction  of 
its  origin,  the  force  of  Protestantism  tends  ever  to  disintegrate  ;  to  perfect  its 
spirit  it  must  destroy  its  organization  ;  while  the  Catholic  Church  naturally 
moves  onward  in  increasing  centralization.  Which  of  the  two  systems  is 
better  for  the  world,  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself,  but  there  can  be  no 
two  opinions  as  to  which  is  better  for  itself." — Prank  Crane  in  Open  Court, 
July,  1906.     This  writer  does  not  take  Confessional  Protestantism  into  account. 


880  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

patient  as  Luther  was,  but  not  disingenuous  as  Melanclithon 
at  times  appeared  to  be/ 

The  Confessional  principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  a 
liberal  principle,  but  its  liberality  is  of  a  far-seeing,  just  and 
thorough  order.  It  is  not  the  liberality  of  a  weak,  emotional 
and  unprincipled  charity,  which  is  capable  of  caressing  an 
ecclesiastical  neighbor  on  the  cheek  one  moment,  and  of 
criticizing  or  condemning  him  at  another.  It  is  not  the  liber- 
ality of  a  man  who  gladly  yields  to  others  that  which  is  out- 
worn in  his  own  eye.  The  Church  with  the  Confessional 
principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  treasures  what  the  Lord 
has  commanded  and  taught,  as  not  her  own,  and  as  not  hers 
to  barter  away. 

She  is  not  of  that  nature  which  squanders  charity  on 
others,  and  is  faithless  to  her  own  home  and  children.  What 
she  has,  as  conscience  tells  her,  direct  from  her  Lord,  she 
prizes  and  defends,  and  will  not  allow  to  be  hid  under  a 
bushel,  even  at  the  risk  of  incurring  the  scorn  or  the  dis- 
pleasure of  others  who  consider  it  wrong  in  her  to  maintain 
and  defend  a  peculiar  treasure. 

As  to  others,  she  gives  them  liberty  and  love,  and  heartily 
shares  with  them  all  the  treasure  sh^e  possesses  which  they 
will  really  accept  and  not  despise.  But  when  they  seek  to 
invade  her  sanctum,  and  to  say  that  what  is  therein  is  of 
small  account,  that  it  should  be  removed,  and  that  the  door 
should  be  thro\vn  open  to  a  common  life,  she  feels  that  a 
neighbor  or  relative,  who  calls  himself  a  brother  but  is  so 
with  reservations,  has  trespassed  on  a  genuine  and  well- 
meaning  good-will,  and  has  presumed  on  an  intimacy  or 
communion  which  he  is  not  in  a  position  and  does  not  deserve 
to  share.  Yet  she  abates  no  love  to  the  children  of  the  Lord, 
from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  though  they  do  not 


'Compare  his  letter  to  Camerarius  ("Dissimulate").  Cp.  also  the  declara- 
tion of  Sohaff  in  his  Creed's: — "The  conduct  of  Melanchthon  weakened  his 
authority  and  influence,  which  had  been  rising  higher  and  higher  before  and 
after  Luther's  death,  especially  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  Before  this 
unfortunate  controversy,  he  was  universally  regarded  as  the  theological  head 
of  the  evangelical  Church  in  Germany,  but  now  a  large  number  of  Lutherans 
began  to   look  upon  him   with   distrust." 


AMERICAN   PROTESTANTISM.  881 

agree  with  her,  and  though  their  failure  to  prize  the  peculiar 
truth  which  is  her  treasure  grieves  her  greatly. 

She  needs  hardly  to  say  how  heartily  she  acknowledges 
that  in  the  Evangelical  Churches,  in  their  ministry  and 
people,  there  are  noble  exemplifications  of  Christian  grace,* 
and  that  she  freely  admits  that,  "  as  Channing,  though 
a  Unitarian,  was  more  lovely  morally  than  many  a  Trini- 
tarian, so,  much  more,  may  some  particular  Christians, 
who  are  in  error  on  the  matter  of  the  Sacraments,  far 
surpass  in  Christian  grace  some  individuals  who  belong  to 
a  Church  whose  sacramental  faith  is  pure.  Some  men  are 
on  the  level  of  their  systems,  some  rise  above  them,  some 
fall  below  them.  A  human  body,  in  which  one  lobe  of  the 
lungs  is  gone,  may  not  only  live,  but  be  healthy ;  another  may 
be  sickly  and  die,  in  which  the  lungs  are  perfect.  Neverthe- 
less, the  complete  lungs  are  an  essential  part  of  a  perfect 
human  body.  We  still  truly  call  a  man  a  man,  though  he  may 
have  lost  arms  and  legs ;  we  still  call  a  hand  a  hand,  though  it 
may  have  lost  a  finger,  or  be  distorted.  While,  therefore, 
we  freely  call  systems  and  men  Christian,  though  they  lack 
a  sound  sacramental  doctrine,  we  none  the  less  consider  that 
doctrine  essential  to  a  complete  Christian  system,  and  to  the 
perfect  faith  of  a  Christian  man.  The  man  who  has  lost  an 
arm,  we  love  none  the  less.  If  he  has  lost  it  by  carelessness, 
we  pity  his  misfortune,  yet  "svc  do  not  hold  him  free  from  cen- 
sure. But  when  he  insists,  that,  to  have  two  arms,  is  a  blem- 
ish, and  proposes  to  cut  off  one  of  ours,  then  we  resist  him." 

This  insistence  of  his  may  be  gentle  and  lovely  at  the 
start.  He  asks  to  share  our  communion,  and  denies  part  of 
our  Confession.  For  personal  convenience  or  opinion's  sake, 
he  is  willing  to  have  our  church  live  with  a  spot  of  falseness 
in  her  bosom.  He  asks  only  to  be  undisturbed  in  his  private 
opinions.  But  as  these  private  opinions  take  root  in  other 
hearts  and  grow,  he  assumes  for  them  an  equal  right  with 

•  Krauth. 


882  THE    LUTFIERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  Confessional  principle.  It  is  regarded  as  bigotry  to 
assert  any  superior  right  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession. 
To  make  a  resistance  against  the  growing  supremacy  of 
his  tolerated  opinions  is  said  to  be  un-Christian.  "  Truth 
started  with  tolerating:  it  comes  to  be  merely  tolerated. 
Error  claims  a  preference  for  its  judgments  on  all  disputed 
points." 

IS   THE   CONFESSIONAL   PRINCIPLE   OF   THE  BOOK  OF   CONCORD 
ACCEPTED    IN    ALL    PARTS    OF    THE    LUTHERAN    CHURCH  f 

The  great  American  writer  on  the  Credal  Principle  in 
Christianity,  Schaff,  declares  that  it  is  not.  He  tells  us 
that  "  The  Formula  of  Concord  is  disowned  by  the  Melanch- 
thonian  and  Unionistic  schools  in  the  Lutheran  Church."  * 
There  is  no  question  that  Pliilippists  and  Gnesio-Lutherans 
still  constitute  portions  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  And  we 
are  not  of  those  who  would  disown  their  historical  right, 
traced  from  tlie  Reformation  period,  to  existence.  Whether 
they  exalt  the  Lutheran  Church  as  a  Church,  or  their  own 
doctrine  as  a  doctrine,  or,  as  Schaff  declares,  "  disown  "  the 
Confessional  principle  of  tlie  Formula  of  Concord,  why 
should  they  not  be  left  to  their  patrimony,  and  be  allowed  the 
historical  right  to  bear  the  name  of  the  great  Reformer,  to 
whose  doctrines  they  bear  the  relation  of  Melanchthon  and 
his  principle.  Why  should  not  the  ]\lelanchthonian  Lutheran- 
ism  in  Germany  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  of  the 
"Union,"  and  in  America  be  respected  as  exemplifying  an 
historical  European  fact,  one  different  from  the  Confessional 
Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  on  which  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  was  founded,  and  which  they  do  not  all, 
as  Schaff  says,  in  puttiug  the  case  too  strongly  even  for 
his  day,  "disown."  There  are  also  Melanchthonians  who, 
like  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus,  have  come  to  see  the  real  heart 
of  the  Lutheran  faith,  and,  personally,  to   accept  the  Book 


Creeds   of   ChristetiduiH.    I     p.    322. 


AMERICAN   PROTESTANTISM.  883 

of  Concord.  These  good  Lutherans,  however,  cling  to  a  less 
specific  confesision,  feeding  that  they  onght  make  their  prin- 
ciple tell,  as  leaven  in  the  loaf  of  a  common  American  Ive- 
formed  Protestantism.  The  old  cloth  is  Pnritanic,  and  the 
little  patch  of  Lntheranism  sewed  on  with  so  mnch  sacrifice, 
will  enlarge  the  rent  rather  than  make  seamless  the  garment. 
What  respect  did  the  fonnder  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance, 
whose  fellowship  in  language  and  religion  with  Evangelical 
Protestants  was  bonndless,  have  for  the  fraternal  Melanch- 
thonian  Lutherans?  Not  enough  to  prevent  him  from  speak- 
ing as  follows : — 

"  Outside  of  Germany  the  Lutheran  Church  is  stunted  in  its  normal  growth, 
or  undergoes,  witli  the  change  of  hinguage  and  nationahty,  an  ecclesiastical  trans- 
formation. This  is  the  case  with  the  great  majority  of  Anglicized  and  American- 
ized Lutherans,  who  adopt  Reformed  views  on  the  Sacraments,  the  observance  of 
Sunday,  Church  Discipline,  and  other  points."  ' 

Thus  did  this  venerable  apostle  of  unionism  in  two  conti- 
nents show  the  kind  of  fraternal  spirit  and  brotherly  love 
which  the  Reformed  principle  possesses  even  for  those  under 
the  Augsburg  Confession  who  were  most  willing  to  extend 
the  hand  of  fellowship  at  the  Nineteenth  Century  ]\Iarburg 
colloquies.  He  regarded  them  as  having  no  substantiality,  and 
as  only  forming  "  the  connecting  link "  *  between  the 
Lutheran  Confession  and  the  Reformed.  Can  we  expect 
more  of  the  Puritan,  or  the  Anglican  stock  whose  principle 
of  fellowship  practically  proves  to  be  that  of  the  lion  and 
the  lamb — the  hungry  lion,  to  whom,  as  Schaff  predicts, 
fellowship  means  the  possibility  of  absorption. 

But  the  right  of  the  Variata  is  really  historical.  It  repre- 
sents and  can  stand  for  as  much  as  is  justified  in  its  own  past. 
It  cannot  represent  that  which  has  been  unchanging  and  is 
genuine.  Confessions  cannot  be  altered  or  improved  after 
they  have  become  the  basis  of  action,  even  with  the  consent 
of  all  the  authors  or  signers. 


^  Creeds   of  Christendom,   I,   p.   213. 
•  Jb.,  p.   214, 


884  THE   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

!N^eitlier  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  nor  the  Xinety- 
five  Thesis  of  Luther,  nor  an  old  standard  hymn,  nor  any 
historic  document  of  import  and  standing  may  be  "altered 
and  improved"  by  subsequent  generations  into  whose  hands 
it  may  fall. 

Even  the  author  himself,  when  he  once  has  given  over  a 
confession  to  the  church,  and  the  church  has  accepted  it  as 
her  own,  has  merged  and  given  over  his  own  private  pro- 
perty rights,  to  the  larger  body  in  whose  interests  it  has 
been  composed,  and  to  whom  it  now  belongs.  Both  the  inter- 
ests of  the  public  body,  which  accepts  the  confession  as 
expressing  that  which  is  most  precious  to  itself,  and  also  the 
interests  of  historical  accuracy  prevent  any  private  tampering 
of  an  author  with  his  own  former  workmanship.  One  can- 
not add  new  clauses,  or  take  away  old  ones,  privately,  from  a 
mortgage,  however  desirable  that  may  be,  when  once  it  is 
of  record. 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  PEINCIPLE  OF  THE  UNALTERED  AUGSBURG 
CONFESSION   IS  THAT   OF   THE   BOOK   OF   CONCORD. 

Historical  and  territorial  causes  led  some  parts  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  Europe  to  characterize  themselves  as  the 
Church  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  The  Con- 
fessional Principle  of  the  LTnaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  except  that  it  is 
more  positive,  more  determinedly  and  extremely  Lutheran, 
and  less  mild  and  expanded,  than  the  principle  of  the  Book 
of  Concord. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  takes  pains  to  identify  its  con- 
fessional principle  with  that  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. The  subjects  treated  in  the  Formula '  are  only  those 
treated  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  are  less  in  number. 
The  very  Title  of  the  Formula  is,  "  solid,  plain  and  clear 


'  Except  the  DesceTisus. 


AMERICAN    PROTESTANTISM.  885 

repetition  and  declaration  of  certain  articles  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession/'  The  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord  declares 
that  "  the  doctrine  comprised  in  it  "  (the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession), "they  have  constantly  judged  to  be  the  only  and 
perpetual  consensus  of  the  truly  believing  Church."  The 
Preface  declares  it  to  be  "  that  godly  confession,  which  was 
built  upon  solid  testimonies  of  truth  unmoved  and  expressed 
in  the  Word  of  God."  They  say:  "It  has  never  been  our 
intention  to  defend  any  new  dogma,  but  ...  to  con- 
stantly support  and  retain  the  truth  which  we  professed  at 
Augsburg  in  the  year  1530."  They  call  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord "  a  repetition  of  our  Christian  faith  and  Confession." 
They  say :  "  We  emphatically  testify  that  we  wish  to  em- 
brace the  first  Augsburg  Confession  alone."  They  declare 
again :  "  It  has  always  been  our  intention  that  in  our  lands, 
schools  and  churches  no  other  doctrine  be  proclaimed  and 
accurately  set  forth  than  that  which  is  founded  upon  the 
Word  of  God,  as  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and 
the  Apology."  They  say  again :  "  We  mean  that  doctrine 
which  ...  is  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession 
1530.  .  .  .  We  have  determined  not  to  depart  even  a 
finger's  breadth  from  the  things  or  from  the  phrases."  The 
Formula  itself  declares :  "  From  our  inmost  hearts  we  here- 
with once  again  confess  this  Christian  Augsburg  Confession, 
which  is  so  thoroughly  grounded  in  God's  Word.  We  abide 
by  the  simple,  clear  and  plain  meaning  of  the  same."  Still 
again  they  say :  "  We  intend,  by  the  grace  of  the  Almighty 
to  faithfully  abide  until  our  end  by  this  Christian  Confes- 
sion." Further  they  declare :  "  It  is  our  purpose  neither  in 
this  nor  in  any  other  writing  to  compose  another  or  new 
Confession." 

Once  again  they  say,  "We  confessionally  accept  the  first 
unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  (not  because  it  was  composed 
by  our  theologians,  but  because  it  has  been  derived  from 
God's  Word,  and  is  founded  firmly  and  well  therein),  pre- 
cisely in  the  form  in  which  it  was  committed  to  writing  in 


886  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

the  year  1530."  *  Finally,  they  say,  "  IS^o  one  who  is  true 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  will  complain  of  these  writings, 
but  will  cheerfully  accept  and  tolerate  them  as  witnesses  of 
the  truth." '  The  other  writings  referred  to  as  witnesses  of 
the  truth  are  the  remaining  symbols  between  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

Words  could  not  more  clearly,  more  earnestly  or  more 
emphatically  declare  the  identity  of  the  Confessional  prin- 
ciple of  the  Book  of  Concord  with  that  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  an  examination  of  the  bulky  Church  Orders  and 
Bodies  of  Doctrine  out  of  whose  confusion  the  Formula  of 
Concord  was  written  could  not  more  clearly  testify  to  the 
wisdom  of  completing  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
of  1530  by  the  brief  repetition  and  declaration  of  the  For- 
mula. 

"  The  whole  struggle,  commencing  with  Luther's  publica- 
tion of  the  ninety-five  theses  in  1517,  and  terminating  with 
the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Concord  in  1580,  was  the  most 
remarkable  which  the  Avorld  has  beheld  since  the  age  of  the 
Apostles.  We  cannot  assign  its  termination  to  an  earlier  date 
than  the  one  when  the  church  came  forth  from  the  struggle 
as  a  victor,  bearing  as  the  reward  of  its  fidelity  to  its  great 
Head  the  Holy  Scriptures  set  forth  in  their  purity  and  in- 
tegi'ity  and  shielded  from  misinterpretation  by  the  holy 
Confession  comprised  in  the  symbols  of  the  church. 

'"  It  would,  therefore,  be  equivalent  to  an  attempt  to  put 
asunder  what  God  has  joined  together,  if  the  church,  at  the 
present  day,  forgetful  alike  of  the  history  of  its  origin  in  its 
present  form,  and  of  its  obligations  to  the  cause  of  divine 
truth,  would  make  a  discrimination  between  the  several  sym- 
bols, and  not  rather  receive  them  all  as  parts  essentially  nec- 
essary to  its  confession  as  an  entire  confession.  This  is  the 
view  entertained  not  only  by  our  older  theologians,  but  also 
by  those  of  the  last  and  present  century.     It  is  well  known 


'  Book  of  Concord,  p.   536. 
^Ib.,  p.  538. 


AM  ERIC  AX    riW  TEST  ANT  ISM.  887 

that  in  the  doctrinal  writings  of  all  the  eminent  divines  of 
the  church,  arranged  as  they  are  in  various  classes,  character- 
ized by  various  degrees  of  orthodoxy  and  various  systems  of 
philosophy,  the  evidence  is  found  that,  amid  all  the  couHict- 
ing  opinions  which  they  entertain,  when  they  find  occasion 
to  refer  to  any  point  as  either  adopted  or  rejected  by  the  Ev. 
Luth.  Church,  they  quote  indiscriminately  from  one  or  all 
of  the  symbols  of  which  mention  has  been  made  above,  and 
which,  as  an  aggregate,  constitute  The  Book  of  Concord. 
The  evidence  is  accessible  to  all,  and  is  so  little  liable  to 
contradiction,  that  it  needs  no  introduction  in  this  place. 
Still,  among  the  innumerable  illustrations  of  this  fact,  a  sin- 
gle sentence  may  be  quoted  from  the  preface  ('  Vorwort')  of 
a  small  work  of  Prof.  Thomasius,  which  he  published  a  few 
years  ago  (ISTovember,  1848),  and  which  we  mention  in  pref- 
erence to  others,  simply  because  he  had  introduced  into  its 
title,  namely,  '  das  Bekenntnis  der  evangelisch-lutherischen 
Kirche  in  der  Konsequenz  seines  Prinzips,'  the  same  phrase 
of  which  this  report  is  treating.  His  words  are :  '  I  was 
led  to  give  attention  specially  to  the  relation  in  which  the 
Formula  of  Concord  stands  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  be- 
cause it  is  this  point  against  wdiieh,  at  present,  opposition  to 
the  confession  is  specially  directed,  and  in  reference  to  which 
it  is  most  frequently  necessary  to  explain  and  remove  mis- 
understandings.' AVhen  he  here  speaks  of  the  '  confession 
of  the  church,'  he  assumes  as  a  fact,  which  no  theologian 
would,  without  grave  reasons,  question  in  the  present  age; 
that  the  Formula  of  Concord  is  as  completely  a  part  of  the 
confession  of  the  church,  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself, 
or  any  other  symbol  is  a  part  of  it.  Indeed,  no  theological 
work  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  is  understood  to  have 
been  published  by  any  modern  German  theologian,  which 
cordially  acknowledges  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  yet  rejects  the  succeeding  symbols  as  capable  of 
being  separated  from  the  former  without  violence  and  his- 
torical unfairness. 


888  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

"  The  prominence  which,  in  the  church  in  the  United 
States,  has  often  been  given  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
the  frequent  omission  of  the  names  of  the  succeeding  Sym- 
bolical Books,  might  produce  the  erroneous  impression  that 
the  former  possessed  a  higher  rank  or  greater  authority  in 
that  part  of  the  church  which  is  found  in  America,  than  the 
latter,  unless,  in  addition  to  the  explanations  which  have 
already  been  given  above,  respecting  the  origin  of  the  his- 
torical name  of  the  '  church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,' 
the  following  facts  are  also  properly  appreciated;  they 
clearly  establish  this  principle:  That  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  the  representative  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Syin- 
holical  Books,  so  that,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  those 
who  forinerly  named  it  alone,  nevertheless  understood  it  to 
imply  and  include  the  other  confessional  writings  with  which 
it  is  inseparably  connected."  ^° 

WHAT   AN    EX   ANIMO    CONFESSIOX    OF    THE    TJNALTERED   AUGS- 
BURG  CONFESSION  INVOLVES. 

Prom  the  identity  of  the  Confessional  principle  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  as  found  in  the  earlier  root  and  the  later 
fruit  of  the  Reformation  consciousness,  it  follows  that  those 
who,  like  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  "most 
heartily  confess  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  "  will  also, 
if  candid  and  consistent,  with  equal  heartiness  confess  the 
principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord ;  and  vice  versa.  Such  a 
hearty,  or  ex  animo,  confession  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  involves,  on  the  part  of  a  Lutheran  Church  body, 
the  actual  teaching  of  the  same  doctrine,  on  points  set  forth 
in  the  Confession,  in  all  the  churches  of  that  body.  This  is 
emphasized,  not  only  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  by  the  oft- 
repeated  "we  believe,  teach,  and  confess ;"  but  also  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  itself,  which   declares: — 

"  Our  Churches,  wnth  common  consent,  do  teach"    (Art.  I)  ; 


'C.  F.  Schaeffer  in  1863.     Ev.  Rev.,  V.  pp.  204-206. 


AMERICAN   PROTESTANTISM.  889 

"they  teach;"  (Art.  II)  ;  "  they  teach;"  (Art.  Ill)  ;  "  they 
teach  "  (Art.  IV)  ;  "  they  teach  "  (Art.  VI)  ;  "  they  teach  " 
(Art.  VII)  ;  "  they  teach  "  (Art.  IX)  ;  ''  they  teach  "  (Art. 
X)  ;  "  they  teach  "  (Art.  XI)  ;  "  they  teach  "  (Art.  XII)  ; 
"they  teach"  (Art.  XIII);  "they  teach"  (Art.  XIV); 
"  they  teach  "  (Art.  XV)  ;  "  they  teach  "  (Art.  XVI)  ;  "  they 
teach"  (Art.  XVII);  "they  teach"  (Art.  XVIII);  "they 
teach"  (Art.  XIX);  "they  teach"  (Art.  XXI). 

The  actual  and  unanimous  teaching  of  the  doctrine  set 
forth  in  this  Confession  is  therefore  necessary  on  the  part 
of  those  who  subscribe  it;  and  a  hearty  and  enthusiastic 
unanimous  teaching  is  necessary  on  the  part  of  those  who 
subscribe  to  it  ex  animo. 

The  fact  as  to  whether  a  body  makes  an  ex  animo  subscrip- 
tion to  any  set  of  principles  and  doctrines  or  not,  may  be 
tested  in  two  ways:  first,  by  the  official  declaration  of  the 
body;  second,  by  the  official  teaching  acts  of  those  set  to 
represent  it. 

If  a  synod  subscribes  ex  animo  to  certain  principles,  it 
thereby  becomes  their  defender,  and  will  so  unmistakably 
let  this  fact  be  known  in  its  fundamental,  i.  e.,  its  constitu- 
tional writings,  that  the  whole  world,  especially  its  own 
members  and  the  members  of  all  other  denominations,  can 
make  no  mistake  on  that  fact. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  the  official  teaching-acts  of  its 
teachers,  whether  professors,  writers,  pastors,  catechists,  dele- 
gates, must  truly  correspond  with  the  principle  which  the 
body  who  sends  them  forth  subscribes  ex  animo.  While 
it  is  quite  true  that  a  body  is  to  be  judged  solely  by  its 
official  utterances ;  yet  the  fidelity  and  loyalty  of  a  body  to 
its  official  utterances  must  be  tested  by  the  utterances  of  its 
teaching  officials,  whether  pastors,  professors  or  writers — not 
by  what  they  say  in  their  own  personal  capacity,  but  by  what 
they  say  in  their  pulpits,  their  text-books,  their  public  state- 
ments on  behalf  of  the  body  which  they  profess  to  represent, 


890  THE    LUTHERAN'   CONFESSIONS. 

and  especially  by  what  they  say  and  do  as  representatives  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  before  Christian  faiths,  and  other 
Christians. 

If  the  body's  subscription  to  principles  is  perfect,  but  the 
teaching  of  the  teachers  is  different;  the  case  is  like  that  of 
a  bank  whose  business  principles  are  entirely  correct,  but 
several  of  whose  officers,  in  contrast  with  the  principles  of  the 
bank  and  in  disloyalty  to  them,  carry  on  their  share  of  the 
business  on  questionable  financial  principles.  !N^o  matter 
how  often  the  bank  may  point  to  its  faith  and  charter,  and 
how  prominently  it  may  hang  its  good  rules  on  the  wall, 
and  how  unimpeachable  its  president  and  directors  may  be; 
if  it  permits  the  questionable  to  continue  in  official  acts 
contrary  to  the  rules  and  principles,  on  the  plea  that  it 
cannot  interfere  with  the  personal  liberty  of  its  employees, 
then  depositors  and  outside  banking  firms  cannot  be  blamed 
if  they  withdraw  their  deposits  and  close  out  their  accounts 
in  that  institution. 

The  real  question  is  not  what  do  you  subscribe,  but  what 
do  you  believe  and  publicly  teach,  and  what  are  you  transmit- 
ting to  those  who  come  after  ?  If  it  is  the  complete  Lutheran 
faith  and  practice,  the  name  and  number  of  the  standards  is 
less  important.  If  it  is  not,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon 
you  to  show  that  your  more  incomplete  standard  does  not  in- 
dicate an  incomplete  Lutheran  faith.  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  not  intended  to  be  an  explicit,  adequate,  and 
final  statement  of  the  Lutheran  faith.  It  closes  as  follows : 
"  Only  those  things  have  been  recounted,  whereof  we  thought 
that  it  was  necessary  to  speak.  .  .  If  anything  further  be 
desired,  we  are  ready,  God  willing,  to  present  ampler  infor- 
mation according  to  the  Scriptures."  The  later  Confessions 
'present  this  "  ampler  information  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures," which  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself  promised,  and 
without  which  it  is  incomplete. 


CHAPTER   XL. 

THE  COiq^FESSIOXAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  CONCORD  AND  CHRISTIAN 

COOPERATION. 

Luther  and  Melanchthon  on  Federation — Federation  To-day — The  Sphere  of  the 
Church  in  Civil  Reform — The  Dangers  in  Cooperation — The  Lutheran  not  a 
Narrow-minded  Church — The  True  Position  of  the  Confessional  Principle  in 
Cooperation — The  Attitude  of  the  Confessional  Principle  toward  Those  With- 
out— The  Principle  of  Fellowship — The  Union  Recognized  by  the  Confessional 
Principle. 

LUTHER   AND    MELANCHTHON    ON    FEDERATION. 

LUTHER  and  ^relanchthon  were  against  Confederation 
of  any  kind, — internal,  as  a  brotherhood  of  Churches ; 
or  external,  in  civil  and  religions  government.  Bnt  Melanch- 
thon, to  whom  the  Roman  idea  of  visible  nnity  alvsrays  ap- 
pealed, wonld  have  sacrificed  much  for  the  sake  of  remaining 
in  the  historic  unity  of  Rome ;  and,  when  that  was  impossible, 
for  the  sake  of  preventing  Protestantism  from  splitting  up 
into  external  divisions.  Although  Luther  was  less  fanatical 
and  better  balanced  than  any  of  the  sectarian  and  more 
radical  Reformers,  he  was  convinced  that  his  work  and  duty 
as  a  Christian  pastor  and  Professor  was  to  testify  to  the  truth 
— the  whole  truth — and  become  a  martyr,  if  need  be,  the 
same  as  an  apostle  in  New  Testament  days.  The  perilous 
or  unpleasant  consequences  of  the  truth  for  the  Church  or 
for  the  generation  in  which  he  lived,  did  not  concern  him. 
That  was  God's  affair,  not  his.  God  was  able  to  take  care 
of  the  world  and  of  the  Church.  Man's  affair  was  to  stand 
for  the  Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

891 


893  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Luther  did  not  seem  to  feel  that  any  combination  of 
forces,  in  our  modern  sense  of  the -term,  was  important  to 
the  Church.  He  relied  solely,  like  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
upon  the  power  of  the  Word.  Yet  the  activities  of  Philip 
of  Hesse,  both  at  Augsburg  and  later  in  the  Schmalkald 
League,  with  the  checks  placed  upon  them,  appear  to  have 
been  part  of  the  plan  of  Providence.  No  human  mind  can 
say  whether,  if  witness  alone  had  been  relied  upon,  even 
unto  martyrdom ;  or  if  the  issue  between  Protestantism  and 
Romanism  had  been  brought  to  an  immediate  and  final  head 
in  the  Sixteenth  instead  of  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  the 
result  would  have  been  better  or  worse  for  the  Truth.  Kot 
only  is  Luther — but  Melanchthon  likewise — always  with  the 
Church,  to  complicate  the  application  of  the  pure  Confes- 
sional Princij^le.  Of  one  fact  we  may  be  sure,  and  that  is 
that  the  scenes  which  occurred  between  1530  and  1580  were 
our  examples.' 

There  is  something  fascinating  in  a  united  attack  of  the 
whole  visible  Church  of  God  upon  the  strongholds  of  sin. 
The  advance  under  one  banner,  the  use  of  one  watchword, 
the  presentation  of  a  solid  front  toward  the  wickedness  of 
the  world,  the  substitution  for  a  loose  and  inconsistent  or- 
ganization, of  one  that  is  close,  unbroken,  consistent  and 
faultless;  the  enthusiastic  crusade  under  an  idea,  instead  of 
patient  and  ineffective  toil  under  wretched  fact;  the  re- 
solving of  the  narrower  Church  into  the  broader  Kingdom  of 
God;  the  great  possibilities  of  accomplishing  great  work  to- 
gether; the  sense  of  being  in  a  large  enterprise,  of  one  that 
above  all  things  is  making  progress,  of  one  that  has  the  mighty 
majority  with  it  and  is  already  bearing  the  legends  of 
success  and  victory  on  its  banner ;  the  one  concerning  which 
the  world — both  friend  and  foe — is  obliged  to  take  respect- 
ful notice;  the  life  with  men  of  breadth  where  the  whole 
atmosphere  is  free,  where  there  is  room  for  plenty  of  work 
and    plenty    of    difference    in    personal    opinion ;    where    a 


M  Cor.  10:  11-12. 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     893 

distinction  is  made  between  a  few  great  fundamentals  of 
Christianity  and  such  minor  matters  as  can  be  set  aside, — 
these  are  the  characteristics  of  a  confederate  Christianity 
which  persuade  many  that  convictions  are  not  as  important 
as  work  to  be  done;  that  the  Faith  and  the  Truth  on  their 
sharper  sides,  even  if  revealed  and  pressed  on  us  in  the 
Word  of  God,  may  be  sacrificed — at  least  in  some  details — 
for  the  sake  of  a  larger  movement,  which  in  some  way  will 
result  in  a  final  unity  in  the  Truth  and  in  its  success  and 
.  will  justify  the  temporary  relaxing  of  our  conviction  and  the 
overlooking  of  minor  matters  in  the  Faith. 

But  Luther  never  yielded  to  tliis  view.  He  said  of  the 
doctrine  (which  is  not  ours,  but  God's)  :  "  We  can  remit  not 
even  a  jot,  nor  can  we  permit  eitlier  abatement  or  addition. 
It  must  be,  as  it  were,  a  continuous  and  round  golden  circle. 
.  .  .  If  they  believed  the  Word  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
they  would  know  that  one  Word  of  God  is  all  His  words, 
and  all  His  words  are  one ;  likewise,  one  article  is  all  articles, 
and  all  articles  are  one."  ^  "  Luther/'  says  Kostlin,'  "  has 
evidently  no  other  idea  than  that  every  congregation,  or 
church,  which  desires  to  be  faithful  to  its  duty  must  pub- 
licly and  decidedly  confess  all  the  truth  which  we  have 
found  him  presenting  in  his  doctrinal  writings  or  defending 
against  its  assailments ;  and  that  they  must  do  this  in  view 
of  the  thoroughly  Scriptural  character  of  the  positions  thus 
maintained  and  their  intimate  connection  with  the  central 
point  of  Christian  doctrine.  He  evidently  regarded  it  as 
bis  unquestionable  calling  to  labor  with  all  his  power  to  in- 
duce the  Church,  with  whose  guidance  he  was  in  part  en- 
trusted, to  make  such  full  and  open  confession."  .  .  . 

"  In  the  confession  which  he  was  then  called  upon  to  prepare 
for  the  Church,  i.  e.,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  he  endeavored, 
without  any  regard  whatever  for  such  [i.  e.,  for  those  persons 
to  whom  lie  had  shown  consideration,  but  who  were  not  in 


=*  Theology  of  Luther,  trans,  by  Hay,  Vol.  II,  p.  273. 
» lb.,  p.  272. 

60 


894  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

full  accord  with  so  important  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Lord's 
Supper],  to  confess  the  full  round  truth.  Such  then  is  the 
])osition  of  Luther,  as  indicated  bj  his  own  writings,  upon 
the  question  of  the  distinction  between  fundamental  and 
non-fundamental  doctrines  "  "  to  us  Lutherans  of  the  Twen- 
tieth Century. 


FEDERATION    TO-DAY. 

Federation  to-day  is  a  conclusion  from  two  premises,  in 
which  many  important  points  are  implicit,  rather  than  ex- 
plicit, and  much  is  taken  for  granted.  If  the  Confessional 
Principle,  in  all  its  bearings,  were  acknowledged  explicitly 
in  advance,  by  a  Federation  of  Evangelical  Churches 
founded  upon  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  and 
Redemption  of  Christ,  with  a  recognition  of  the  deep  gulf 
that  divides  our  Faith  and  non-conservative  Protestantism ; 
and  if  it  were  not  premised,  as  it  always  is,  that  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  one  .of  "  some  thirty  orthodox  Protestant  denomi- 
nations who  are  fully  at  one  in  the  essentials  and  differ  only 
in  some  doctrinal  peculiarities  or  in  gifts  of  administra- 
tion,"* it  might  be  possible  to  enter  into  cooperation  for 
definite  acts  along  certain  well-defined  lines.  But  it  is  a 
question  whether  cooperation  of  this  character,  as  it  could 
practically  be  given,  would  be  of  value  to  the  Christian 
Faith,  or  to  our  country;  or  whether  it,  surrounded  and 
hedged  in  by  conditions,  would  bo  appreciated  by  the  other 
parts  of  federated  Protestantism.  In  order  to  uphold  the 
Evangelical  Confessional  Principle  without  cloud  or  com- 
promise, it  would  be  necessary  for  non-Lutherans  to  under- 
stand and  to  grant  that  the  Lutheran  Church  though  the 
mother  Protestant  church,  is  catholic,  retaining  the  supremacy 
of  Scripture,  and  the  continuity  of  history  in  doctrine,  wor- 
ship, discipline  and  the  like,  but  purging  away  Poman  error; 
and  that  it  differs  from  the  other  Protestant  bodies  of  the 


s«  26.,  p.   273. 


*  This  is  substantially  the  language,  often  repeated,  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Federation  of  Protestant   Churches,   at   its  meeting  in    1908. 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     895 

Keformation,  commonly  called  the  Reformed  bodies  of  Prot- 
estants, and  from  all  more  recently  arising  sects,  in  its  ap- 
prehension of  almost  every  point  of  doctrine."  It,  further, 
would  be  necessary  to  permit  the  Lutheran  Church  to  lodge 
its  protest  or  record  its  objection  of  conscience,  to  every 
word  and  deed  of  the  Federation  wliich  indicated  Con- 
fessional difference  from  itself. 

It  differs  from  those  other  Protestants  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  Word,  the  Scripture,  the  Church,  the  Sacraments,  the 
Means  of  Grace,  the  Ministry,  the  operations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  freedom  of  the  will  (synergism),  often  on  the 
nature  of  justification,  good  works,  the  Church  and  State 
in  j\loral  Reforms,  and  on  the  Person  of  Christ. 

These  differences  appear  in  all  attempts  at  practical  ac- 
tion. The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  believe  that  it  is  show- 
ing its  zeal  in  tlie  cause  of  the  Lord  or  is  actively  ushering 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God  by  using  its  power  as  an  organization 
to  establish  divorce  laws,  race-track  legislation,  Sunday,  or, 
still  worse — Sahbafh  laws,  labor  legislation.  Temperance 
Reform,  and  by  rooting  out  civic  corruption  and  immorality. 
It  declares  that  the  Church  externalizes  itself  and  falls  short 
of  its  great  regenerative  mission  when  it  fastens  its  eye  on 
temjwral  reform,  wrought  chiefly  by  the  arm  of  law  in  the 
State,  rather  than  by  addressing  the  powerful  Word  of  God 
to  the  consciences  of  its  members. 

THE   SPHERE   OF   THE    CHURCH    IX    CIVIL   REFORM. 

It  by  no  means  agrees  with  the  Reformed  Protestantism 
of;  the  American  Protestant  Federation,  as  to  the  task  of 
practical  reform  assumed  by  that  body.  It  does  not  agree 
in  enforcing  such  reform  with  stringency  upon  the  civil 
government,  and  in  finding  its  justification  thereunto  either 
in  positive  Biblical  ordinances,  or  in  the  name  of  humanity. 
This  is  admitted  by  Seeberg."     Neither  can  the  Lutheran 


^  Schaif  says  we  are  united  on   all   essentials   and   differ  only   in   the   Sacra- 
ments. 

*  Cp.  History  of  Doctrines,  II,   p.  415. 


896  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Church  enter  into  relations  or  covenants  with  the  civil 
authority  which  would  involve  an  attitude,  if  not  a  siibor- 
(lination  of  the  State  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Church. 

The  Lutheran  Church  cannot  enter  into  reforms  on  the 
Calvinistic  principle.  Obedience  to  the  sovereign  will  of 
God  is  not  the  content  of  Christian  life  and  the  State  and 
Society  at  large  are  not  agencies  for  the  enforcement  of 
divine  law.  The  Calvinistic  or  Reformed  attitude  of  the 
Church  toward  the  State,  with  all  its  magnificence  of  holy 
zeal,  is  that  of  Augustine  and  the  ]\riddle  Ages.  The  Con- 
fessional principle  of  Lutheranism  does  not  attempt  to  re- 
form the  State  or  the  world  by  the  application  of  law.^ 

To  enter  the  civic  field  and  secure  the  amelioration  of 
social  or  spiritual  conditions  by  legislation  is  not  the  work  of 
the  Church.  This  is  in  the  sphere  of  the  State  and  belongs 
to  Christian  citizens  in  their  organized  capacity  in  prac- 
tical politics.  It  is  not  the  work  of  the  ministry,  a  spiritual 
office,  which  must  not  be  used  to  the  gain  of  even  worthy 
earthly  ends.  The  Federation's  conception  involves  ulti- 
mate entanglement  of  Church  and  State.  * 


'  "  The  God  of  Calvin  is  the  omnipotent  Will,  ruling  throughout  the  world  ; 
the  God  of  Luther  is  the  omnipotent  energy  of  Love  manifest  in  Christ.  In 
the  one  case,  we  have  acts  of  compulsion  even  in  the  heart,  subjection,  law, 
service  ;  iu  the  other,  inward  conquest  by  the  power  of  love,  free  self-surrender, 
filial  love  without  compulsion.  The  one  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the 
other;  but  the  tone  and  emphasis  give  rise  to  the  differences  which  un- 
deniably exist.  From  the  practical  energy  of  the  Reformed  ideals — with  which 
praxis  has  not  always  been  able  to  keep  pace — the  Lutheran  church  may  learn 
a  valuable  lesson.  But  when,  in  any  age  of  evangelical  Christianity,  faith 
grows  dim,  and  love  grows  cold,  and  it  seems  as  though  the  gospel  were  no 
longer  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  advanced  spirit  of  the  '  modern  world  '  then 
will  deliverance  be  found,  not  in  the  views  of  Calvin,  but  in  return  to  the 
gospel  and  the  faith  of  Luther.  Evangelical  Christianity  has  yet  much  to 
learn  from  her  Luther. 

"I  cannot  therefore  agree  with  K.  Miiller  {Svmholik,  540),  who  regards 
It  as  ■  certain  '  that  in  the  evangelical  church  of  the  future  '  the  spirit  of 
the  general  Evangelical  Reformed  Church  will  be  in  the  ascendancy,'  since 
Luther's  contributions  to  the  Church  '  were  substantially  already  adopted  in 
the  sixteenth  century.'  Miiller  has  moreover  acknowledged  that  in  a  certain 
sense  the  Reformed  Church  stands  nearer  to  Roman  Catholicism  than  does 
the  Lutheran  (p.  387a)." — Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  pp.  416-417. 

"The  Lutheran  Church,  in  a  Federation,  would  be  obliged  to  object  to 
prayer  that  God  "  send  down  the  Holy  Ghost  of  a  Christian  Spirit  among 
us,"  that  we  may  "  hear  the  rushing  of  the  wind  among  us  as  the  disciples 
did  at  Pentecost."  U  would  have  to  object  to  a  Sacrament  "  in  which 
Baptists.  Presbyterians,  and  Congregationalists  participated  and  received  the 
whole  blessing,  since  they  had  the  symbols  upon  the  altar  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  their  heartk-  :"  it  would  have  to  object  to  a  definition  of  Lutheranism 
as   "  a  series  of   Church   bodies   who  hold  more   or   leas  to   the   Reformed   doc- 


FEDERATION    AND    COOPKUATION.     897 

That  such  a  conception  of  the  Churcli  is  diverting  it  from 
its  original  pnri)ose  is  discerned  by  the  spiritnal  minded 
sonl,  even  though  it  be  outside  of  the  Evangelical  Faith. 
Thus  one  not  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
but  a  Unitarian/*  writes: — 

"  The  Church  is  tempted  to  abandon  its  real  mission  in 
the  world.  It  is  in  danger  of  being  misled  by  specious  pro- 
grams of  agitators  and  of  transforming  itself  into  a  civic 
forum,  a  therapeutic  hosjjital,  a  dispensary  of  charities,  an 
institution  for  visible  social  betterment.  The  church  stands 
as  the  specific  antidote  of  materialism,  safeguards  the  rev- 
erences of  life,  cares  for  the  moral  visions  of  the  soul  and 
pronounces  every  god-ward  aspiration  of  heart  and  mind  as 
the  noblest  expressions  of  manhood  and  womanhood.  Its 
legitimate  work  is  not  to  sup]ily  new  social  furniture,  but 
to  make  men  righteously  efficient,  and  then  to  trust  them  to 
go  out  with  wisdom  and  consecration  to  improve  in  their 
own  way  the  social  conditions  of  life." 

THE  DANGEKS  IN  COOPEKATION. 

We  believe  that  the  reader  will  conclude  with  us  that  our 
continuous  alliance  or  connection  with  an  American  Protest- 
ant Federation  is  out  of  the  question.  In  such  an  environ- 
ment the  Lutheran  Church  will  find  herself  in  a  situation  in 
which  she  will  be  unable  to  preserve  either  her  Confessional 
principle  or  to  conserve  her  practical  interests.  It  is  a  fact 
that  all  the  Protestant  churches  in  America,  save  our  own, 
are  Reformed  in  descent,  and  that  they  together,  by  nature, 
breathe  out  a  Reformed  spirit.  Therefore,  when  radical 
measures  are  adopted  by  a  general  organization  to  which  they 


trines  of  the  Reformation,  some  more,  some  less."  It  would  have  to  object, 
too,  to  the  statement,  as  understood  by  the  Federation  that  "  the  Church  of 
Christ  and  the  nation  are  vitally  related  each  to  the  other ;"  that  "  the 
Church  of  Christ  should  make  itself  felt  in  American  political  diplomacy  ; 
and  should  organize  into  a  power  which  can  be  applied  to  politics  for 
spiritual  ends."  For,  thus,  evil  in  the  State  will  be  fought  with  the  weapons 
or  by  the  methods  of  Rome,  and  we  have  the  spectacle  of  a  Protestant  ex- 
ternalization  reared  to  checkmate  the  efforts  of  the  Roman  and  corrupt  secular 
influences  in   legislation. 

®*  J.  C.  Jaynes.  ' 


898  THE    LUTHERAN   CON FE S ,S  10 N S. 

all  belong,  even  thongli  these  measures  are  not  approved  in 
any  instance  by  some  part  of  them,  they  do  no  violence  to 
their  fundamental  Reformed  principle.  The  plan  may  be 
most  vigorously  disputed  and  denounced,  but  if  it  be  carried 
by  a  majority,  there  is  no  serious  and  deep-seated  principle 
injured  in  living  under  it. 

But  the  Lutheran  Church  is  the  conservative  Protestant 
Church  of  this  country.  She  is  the  Church  that  holds  on 
to  the  good  of  history,  as  well  as  of  Scripture,  and  that  can- 
not take  into  her  bosom  any  form  of  radicalism.  There- 
fore Lutherauism  is  capable  of  being  iujui-ed  indirectly 
at  almost  every  point,  in  a  common  attempt  at  organization 
or  action  among  American  Protestants ;  and  its  fundamental 
principle  in  any  such  gathering  is  nearly  always  strained 
by  some  radical  action. 

Por  every  Federation  or  cooperation  is  no  more  conserva- 
tive than  its  weakest  point.  No  one  knows,  in  connection 
with  any  such  an  organization  (whether  it  be  in  a  general 
plan  of  action  proposed,  whether  it  be  in  a  deliverance,  per- 
liaps  highly  applauded,  on  the  floor;  whether  it  be  in  the 
arrangement  of  a  mere  local  council),  where,  along  the  line, 
the  most  un-Lutheran  statements,  practices,  proposals,  will 
break  out;  or,  at  least,  ooze  out.  In  a  union  of  this  kind, 
where  we  are  the  one  branch  of  a  different  family  (and,  in 
conventions  and  ecclesiastical  diplomacy  particularly,  the 
remaining  branches  cleave  together  in  spirit,  expression  and 
action),  if  true  to  ourselves,  Lutherans  must  be  under  the 
appearance  of  putting  their  own  views  on  a  higher  plane  of 
importance  than  those  of  all  others.  Nearly  every  sound 
Lutheran  who  has  been  on  the  floor  in  a  general  body  of 
Protestants  and  tried  to  be  consistent  there,  would,  we  sup- 
pose, at  some  moment  recall  some  such  feeling  and  experience. 

There  is  a  reason  for  all  this.  The  Lutheran  church  can- 
not go  very  far  with  the  Reformed  churches  without  finding 
something  in  the  atmosphere,  or  even  in  the  pathway,  that  is 
prejudicial  to  her  principles,  or  that  becomes  a  strain  on 
them.     Is  there  any  Lutheran  who  really  in  his  heart  be- 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     899 

lieves  that  the  Puritans,  the  Church  of  England  men,  and  the 
sectarians  of  the  East  and  West,  will  go  with  him,  and  will 
follow  his  way  in  snch  a  Federation  ?  If  they  will  not,  then 
he  must  either  go  their  way,  or  both  must  choose  a  new 
way, — neither  of  which  things  can  happen  and  he  remain 
true  to  his  Lutheran  faith. 

NOT  A  NARROW-MINDED   CHURCH. 

This  is  not  narro^vness — it  is  a  historical  fact.  We  have 
not  invented  the  fact — it  has  thrust  itself  upon  us;  and  if 
there  be  any  criticism  of  narrowness  against  us,  it  must  not 
be  with  reference  to  the  fact,  but  with  reference  to  our 
recognition  of  it.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  not  a  narrow- 
minded  Church.  She  is  above  and  beyond  all,  a  church  that 
stands  for  clear  fact,  rather  than  for  pure  logic  on  the  one 
hand,  or  for  mixed  sentiment  on  the  other.  The  Lutheran 
Church  can  co-operate  in  many  matters,  but  not  on  general 
sentiment,  and  only  and  always  where  definite  limits  are 
set.  She  is  not  a  diplomatic  church ;  and,  because  she  does 
violence  to  her  open-minded  nature  in  ecclesiastical  diplo- 
macy, she  is  nearly  always  worsted  when  she  engages  in  it. 

We  believe  the  Federation  of  Churches  will  do  good  to 
Reformed  Protestantism.  It  will  draw  together  those  who 
belong  together.  It  should  persuade  those  who  are  united 
on  every  essential  doctrine,  and  divided  by  nothing  but 
sectarian  or  denominational  particularity,  to  give  up  the  latr 
ter,  and  become  one  mighty  American  religious  brotherhood. 
We  believe,  too,  that  it  will  help  the  Lutheran  Church. 
Those  Lutherans  who  prize  the  aims  of  a  Federation  which 
is  essentially  a  Reformed  Protestant  body  in  objects  and 
methods,  above  the  object,  teaching  and  method  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  will  be  kept  busy  in  vain  in  refining  the 
Reformed  oil  out  of  a  Reformed  mass ;  or  will  find  that  the 
Lutheran  oil  is  being  simply  absorbed  in  the  Reformed  mass. 

Let  us  sum  up  the  reasons  why  the  Confessional  Lutheran 
Church    stands    firm    against    amalgamation,    alliance,    or 


900  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

federation.  First  of  all,  she  is  not  on  a  common  foundation 
with  all  other  Protestant  Evangelical  denominations.  This 
has  been  made  to  appear  sufficiently.  In  the  second  place, 
she  has  had  large  experience  in  all  these  proposals,  and  has 
rejected  ihem  generations  ago.  Her  very  birth,  her  youth, 
and  the  crises  of  her  manhood  were  involved  in  this  very 
question.  It  was  the  great  question  that  arose,  with  the  birth 
of  Protestantism,  at  the  Diet  of  Spires.  It  was  the  question 
at  the  Marburg  Colloquy.  It  was  the  question  urged  tena- 
ciously by  Philip  of  Hesse  at  Augsburg.  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession excluded  the  Reformed  Principle.  It  was  the  ques- 
tion for  whose  successful  solution  Bucer  lived  in  vain.  It 
was  the  question  of  the  Variata  of  1540.  It  was  the  ques- 
tion of  the  extreme  Philippists  and  Crypto-Calvinists.  It 
was  the  question  of  the  princes  at  the  Frankfort  Recess.  It 
was  the  question  of  the  Electors  at  the  Convention  at  Xaum- 
burg.  It  was  the  question  that  split  and  disintegrated  the 
Church,  until  it  was  settled,  gently  but  firmly,  in  the  best 
spirit  of  Luther  and  the  best  spirit  of  Melanchthon,  in  the 
Concordia  of  1580. 

THE    TRUE    POSITION    OF    THE    CONFESSIONAI,    PKINCIPLE    IN 
COOPERATION. 

The  true  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  midst 
of  bland  Romanism  and  active  Protestantism,  is  firmness 
without  unfriendliness;  love  without  laxity.  She  should 
strive  for  all  movements  whose  aim  is  unity,  up  to  the  point 
where  it  becomes  evident  that  unity  does  not  exist.  She 
should  shun  all  movements  whose  aim  is  union,  that  is,  the 
cover  or  bond  of  unity  thrown  over  diversity  of  principle. 

Wherever  there  is  common  ground,  there  is  possibility  of 
cooperation.  But  no  cooperation  is  possible  whose  practical 
or  ultimate  effect  is  to  slight  or  ignore  even  the  least  central 
and  most  insignificant  outpost  of  Lutheran  principle.  For 
the  truth  is  organic,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  body  to  stand 
by,  and  not  to  sacrifice,  even  its  smallest  and  most  remote 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     901 

member — its  little  finger,  which  is 'faithful  in  the  discharge 
of  duty.  The  principle  formulated  in  the  sphere  of  love  by 
our  Saviour,  applies  here  in  the  sphere  of  faith:  "Inas- 
much as  ye  have  not  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these,  ye  have 
not  done  it  unto  me." — ''  He  that  is  faithful  in  little  will  be 
faithful  in  much."  This  organic  nature  of  the  faith  is  the 
key  that  solves  the  relations  of  fundamental  and  non-funda- 
mental, and  that  has  practically  been  used  by  the  Formula  of 
Concord  to  determine  the  principle  of  the  adiapliora. 

Common  ground  is  either  neutral  ground  or  a  spot  at 
which  the  inner  unity  of  tlie  communion  of  saints  flashes  out 
into  visibility.  It  is  not  union  ground.  There  never  was  a 
union  of  Christendom  in  the  sense  usually  referred  to,  un- 
less the  mediaeval  union  of  external  rule  under  the  papacy  be 
meant  thereby,  and,  we  do  not  believe  there  will  ever  be  a 
permanent  earthly  re-union  of  Christendom.  The  antithesis 
will  ever  be  operative.  But  there  is  at  this  time  a  unity  of 
all  Christians,  the  unity  of  Christ  Himself,  and  it  constitutes 
the  communion  of  saints.  This  unity  should  more  and  more 
be  realized  and  made  visible,  but  it  must  start  from  within 
outward ;  and  outer  organization  must  honestly  express,  and 
not  cover  up,  the  inner  condition  of  truth  and  principle.  It 
is  the  mistake  of  our  age,  for  any  spiritual  religion  whose 
strength  is  in  Faith  and  communion  with  God,  to  lay  all 
stress  upon  an  external  organization  and  a  surface  appearance 
of  unity.  It  is  a  still  greater  mistake  to  degenerate  dis- 
tinctive faiths  into  a  low  minimum  of  common  faith,  or  to 
attempt  a  union  of  the  common  minimum  with  a  tenacious 
but  individual  preservation  of  what  is  distinctive. 

If  Protestantism  were  to  combine,  by  way  of  elimination, 
or  of  absorption  of  peculiar  principle,  it  would  be  the  be- 
ginning of  the  end  of  Faith.  The  genus  without  the  species 
is  an  abstraction.  When  you  broaden  a  stream  by  sacrificing 
its  positive  life-currents,  you  gain  a  marshland  and  not  a 
mighty  river.  It  is  dangerous  to  unite  in  parallel  action, 
without  parallel  and  common  conviction — for  the  thin  par- 


902  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

titions  of  custom  or  half-dead  conviction  will  soon  wear 
away,  and  there  will  be  formless  coalescence.  The  only  safe 
combination  is  by  common  conviction. 


THE    ATTITUDE    OF    THE     CONFESSIONAL    PRINCIPLE    TOWARD 
THOSE    WITHOUT    THE    LUTHERAN    CHURCH. 

The  Lutheran  Church  bears  an  open  and  loving  and  help- 
ful, not  a  closed  attitude  toward  those  without,  i.  e.,  toward 
those  seeking  the  truth,  or  those  upholding  honest  convictions 
in  the  fear  of  God  and  with  uncorrupt  will.  It  is  the  nature 
of  our  Church  to  be  patient,  suffering  all  things,  having  pleasr 
ure  in  approval  rather  than  condemnation;  in  concord 
rather  than  in  discord.  The  first  of  our  Confessions — that 
of  Augsburg, — and  the  last — the  Form  of  Concord — in  sub- 
stance and  in  tone,  and  our  own  history,  are  set  in  evidence 
on  that  point.  We  are  willing  and  anxious  to  co-operate  for 
the  saving  of  souls  and  the  upbuilding  of  Christ's  kingdom 
with  all  of  God's  children  wheresoever  they  be  found. 

Yet  we  are  prevented  from  co-operating  if  thereby  an  in- 
jury is  done  to  our  conscience ;  or  if  we  thereby  compromise 
an  iota  of  our  prized  and  precious  Faith,  for  which  we  have 
been  called  into  existence;  a  treasure  which  is  blood-bought, 
and  above  all  price;  and  for  which  thousands  of  confessors 
have  laid  down  home,  friends,  worldly  success  and  life. 

This  treasure  is  the  pure  doctrine  of  salvation.  "With 
those  to  whom  the  purity  of  the  Faith,  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  means  much,  we  will  walk  up  to  the  point 
where  both  conclude  we  must  part.  But  with  those  to  whom 
the  purity  of  the  Faith  means  little,  or  less  than  all ;  less 
than  friendship,  blood,  practical  success,  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  and  similar  considerations,  we  are  always  in  danger. 
Our  chief  treasure  they  do  not  so  highly  regard,  and  we 
cannot  entrust  it  to  them  with  the  feeling  that  it  is  safe. 
They  place  other  things  on  a  par  with  this  treasure,  or  above 
it,  and  this  is  a  case  where  no  man  can  have  two  masters: 


FEDEEAT ION    AM)    COOPERATION.      903 

for  either  lie  will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other;  or  else 
he  will  hold  to  the  one,  and  despise  the  other. 

Since  then  we  believe  we  exist  for  the  pure  Gospel  prin- 
ciple, and  all  other  things  are  subordinate,  not  even  onr  best 
friends  outside  (and  still  less  onr  enemies)  can  af^  iis 
to  commit  ourselves  to  association  with  any  people,  plan, 
teachings,  or  temperament  which  would  derogate  from  our 
doctrine;  or  which  would  convey  the  impression  to  the  way- 
faring man  that  we  have  loosened  our  hold  and  relaxed  our 
standard  of  the  truth.* 

If  this  be  true,  we  are  in  a  position  to  lay  a  rule  for  co- 
operation on  the  part  of  the  Church,  viz.,  the  Church  can 
cooperate  in  all  matters  in  which  it  can  openly  apply  its 
principles  or  Confession  as  a  basis;  and  only  in  these.  The 
Church  must  not  ignore  the  issues  of  the  day,  or  excuse  her- 
self from  this  responsibility,  because  she  differs  from  a  com- 
mon Protestantism  as  to  the  end  or  the  means ;  but  she  must 
bear  her  share  of  the  public  burden  in  some  measure,  and 
must  find  a  way  to  do  it. 

And  this  temper  of  the  sympathetic  mind  but  the  strong 
grasp  and  honest  heart,  the  temper  which  is  true  at  once  to 
faith  and  to  charity,  is  the  only  one  of  service  in  dealing 
with  the  most  difficult  problem  of  modern  Protestantism,  and 
of  a  common  Christianity — a  problem,  be  it  remembered, 
which  we  did  not  create  and  which  God  Himself  will  have 
a  hand  in  solving. 


*  Wherever  we  can  work  with  a  common  Christianity,  or  with  a  common 
Lutheranism,  with  the  assurance  that  no  harm,  immediate  or  remote,  will 
come  to  our  one  great  purpose  of  testimony  to  the  truth,  or  to  our  integrity 
of  conscience,  we  are  ready  to  do  so  with  joy  ;  but  wherever  we  are  in  doubt 
as  to  such  a  happy  issue. — and  we  must  be  our  own  judges, — it  is  right  and 
reasonable  for  us  to  decline  to  run  any  risk  of  exposing  our  highest  good  to 
danger,  for  the  sake  of  attaining  a  lower  and  less  important  good ;  and  no 
one  in  his  fair  and  honest  heart  can  blame  us  for  failing  to  join  in  such  a 
common  movement. 

We  do  attach  the  greatest  importance  to  every  Word  of  God ;  but  we  do 
not  attach  the  greatest  importance,  except  as  a  matter  of  high  ideal,  effective 
work,  and  wise  expediency,  to  unity  of  ecclesiastical  organization.  Our  un- 
willingness to  cooperate  with  others,  if  it  be  an  honest  and  conscientious  thing, 
is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  sign  of  dead  orthodoxy,  but  as  a  sign  of  a  living  faith  ; 
it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  a  narrow  outlook,  but  as  a  willing- 
ness to  stand  by  one's  convictions  ;  it  is  not  to  be  branded  as  a  love  of  de- 
nomination or  of  Church  above  Christ,  but  is  to  be  respected  as  an  unswerving 
loyalty  to  Christ  and  His  truth  as  we  see  it. 


904  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFE >"< SION 8. 

Since  we  may  not  rush  into  either  extreme,  but  are  obliged 
to  see  good  wherever  it  may  be  found,  and  to  see  evil  wher- 
ever it  may  be  found ;  and  since  we  cannot  join  in  free  and 
broad  laxity  on  the  one  hand,  nor  resort  to  wholesale  con- 
demnation on  the  other,  we  must  expect  criticism  and  dis- 
satisfaction with  us  from  both  sides,  and  must  be  satisfied 
patiently  to  bear  the  scorn  that  comes  to  those  who  try  to  be 
loving  as  well  as  just. 

THE   PRINCIPLE   OF   FELLOWSHIP. 

Fellowship  is  a  far  more  intimate  thing  than  cooperation. 
Cooperation  is  a  combined  support  in  prosecution  of  a  busi- 
ness plan ;  but  fellowship  is  a  life  together.  Cooperation  is 
a  limited  association  for  definite  ends;  but  fellowship  is  an 
unlimited  association  in  spiritual  life.  Fellowship  throws 
open  all  the  doors,  unlocks  all  the  strong  boxes,  and  bids  the 
other  one  abide  in  our  soul  and  heart. 

Modern  Christianity  greatly  abuses  the  principle  of  fel- 
lowship ;  and,  in  so  far,  destroys  both  its  value  and  its  sacred- 
ness.  On  the  grounds  of  a  broad  humanity,  it  would  admit 
to  the  heart  of  the  Church  even  those  who  despise  the 
precious  merits  of  the  Head  of  tlie  Church.  On  the  ground 
of  a  Christian  brotherhood,  it  will  admit  to  its  fellowship 
those  with  whom  it  will  not  cooperate.  The  less  one  prizes 
the  realities  of  love,  the  more  publicly  can  fellowship  be 
offered.  True  fellowship  is  with  those  with  whom  we  are 
one  in  the  life  of  the  truth  or  fact  on  the  basis  of  which 
the  fellowship  is  enjoyed. 

We  believe  that  the  feeling  against  Lutherans  who  do  not 
participate  in  the  Sacrament  with  all  Christians,  rests  upon 
a  misconception.  Properly  understood,  we  do  not  see  how 
anyone  who  respects  our  belief  would  have  us  do  otherwise. 
The  Sacrament  to  us,  it  need  scarcely  be  said,  is  not  a  sacred 
rite,  but  a  solemn  reality,  in  which  we  receive  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  Therein,  and  in  nothing  else,  lies  its  value 
to  us.     God's  substantial  pledge  to  us  of  salvation,  a  divine 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     905 

act,  must  not  suffer  evaluation  with  our  acquiescence  and 
consent. 

It  is  not,  to  us,  a  mere  mark  of  fellowship  between  Chris- 
tians. It  is,  in  truth,  not  a  mark  of  fellowship  at  all,  except 
in  its  unity.  The  only  fellowship  it  expresses  is  between 
Christ  and  my  soul,  and  not  even  that  primarily.  Primarily 
the  Sacrament  is  the  gift  to  me  of  my  Saviour's  body  and 
blood  for  the  forgiveness  of  my  sin.  It  is  the  most  sacred 
mystery  and  most  holy  reality  of  my  faith.  It  is  of  the 
nature  of  miracle.  It  is  the  mystery  of  Sacrament.  It  is 
the  "  holy  of  holies  "  in  my  religion  and  worship,  and  means 
to  me  the  eating  unto  life  or  the  eating  unto  death. 

My  friends  cannot  claim  to  share  all  the  most  holy  and 
most  solemn  acts  of  my  soul.  Marriage  is  not  so  holy  as  a 
sacrament,  yet  marriage  separates  me  with  another  in  its 
mystery  from  all  the  world ;  and  my  friends  do  not  take  it 
amiss  if  I  fail  to  ask  them  to  share  in  that  holy  communion. 
My  membership  in  an  ancestral  society,  in  a  guild  peculiar 
to  my  vocation,  in  a  discipline  for  the  restoration  of  my 
bodily  health,  separates  me  from  all  except  such  as  I  am, — 
those  who  feel  the  need  of  what  I  need,  those  who  wish  to 
receive  what  I  wish  to  receive.  Do  others  think  hard  of  me 
because  I  excuse  myself  from  their  fellowship,  and  go  my 
way  toward  what  I  know  I  need  ? 

If  my  convictions  are  with  the  historic  democratic  political 
party,  but  my  sons  and  brothers  and  all  my  relatives  are 
of  the  stalwart  republican  type,  do  they  think  any  the  less 
of  me  because  on  election  day  I  separate  myself  from  them, 
and  vote  in  accordance  with  my  convictions  ?  Is  the  matter 
of  family  fellowship  and  manifestation  to  others  that  our 
family  is  in  a  unity,  regarded  as  of  more  import  than  the 
exercise  of  my  convictions  at  the  polls  ?  Do  I  insult  and  fail 
to  show  toleration  and  respect  to  the  position  of  my  relatives 
because  I  go  my  o^^^).  way  to  vote  ? 

Is  the  Lord's  Supper  the  place  to  display  my  toleration,  my 
Christian  sympathy,  or  my  fellowship  with  another  Chris- 
tian, when  that  is  the  very  point  in  which  most  of  all  we 


906  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

differ ;  and  in  which  the  difference  means  for  me  everything — 
means  for  me,  the  reception  of  my  Saviour's  atonement  ?  Is 
this  the  point  to  be  selected  for  the  display  of  Christian 
union,  when  in  fact  it  is  the  very  point  in  which  Christian 
union  does  not  exist  ? 

If  I  will  not  take  the  sacrament  myself  without  having 
been  absolved  at  the  special  service  held  for  that  purpose,  in 
the  fear  of  being  unworthy  and  held  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord,  am  I  kind  to  my  neighbor,  and  kind  to 
my  Lord,  in  asking  the  former  to  come  to  the  sacrament 
without  such  worthiness  as  I  feel  to  be  necessary,  for  safety's 
sake,  in  my  own  case?  Am  I  willing  to  place  him  in  the 
way  of  risk  which  I  am  not  willing  and  dare  not  assume 
myself?  Am  I  kind  to  him,  and  just  to  him,  and  to  the 
Lord,  in  asking  him  to  a  participation  as  thus  offered  ? 

Our  Saviour  said  nothing  of  the  Sacrament  as  the  mark 
of  union  between  Christians.  He  said  it  is  the  forgiveness 
of  my  sins  in  His  blood  given  for,  and  to  us,  and  is  the  com- 
memoration of  Himself.  The  Apostle  Paul  declares  we  are 
one  body  in  the  communion,  but — in  the  "  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ,"  and  in  the  "  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ."  That  is  the  communion  which  we  Lutherans 
celebrate  in  the  sacrament ;  and  will  those  who  believe  that 
this  is  not  the  essence  of  the  sacrament,  desire  to  partake 
of  it  with  us  ?  Or,  shall  we  desire  to  partake  of  it  with 
them  ? 

If  they  should,  they  arc  giving  up  nothing  except  respect 
for  our  convictions;  and  tliey  are  willing  that  we  should  be 
placed  in  the  position  of  seeming  to  give  up  all  that  is  most 
precious  to  us.  If  we  should  desire  to  participate  with  them 
in  their  sacrament,  we  are  willing — in  order  to  celebrate  the 
mystery  with  them — to  seem  to  be  robbing  it  of  the  chief 
significance  with  which,  in  our  conviction,  it  has  been  in- 
vested by  our  Lord. 

Let  us  show  our  belief  in  the  character  of  our  friend  and 
our  participation  in  such  brotherhood  as  can  exist  in  Christ, 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     UU? 

in  a  more  practical  way.  Let  us  trust  his  word.  Let  us 
praise  his  faith  where  we  can.  Let  us  demonstrate  our 
entire  absence  of  jealousy  of  him.  Let  us  not  only  tolerate 
his  church  in  our  midst,  but  encourage  him  to  worship  in 
accordance  with  his  convictions.  Let  us  convince  him  that 
we  believe  he  values  his  convictions;  and  that,  though  we 
are  not  in  unison  with  him  in  our  principles,  yet  we  do  not 
thereby  set  up  ourselves  as  better  Christians  than  he  is.  Let 
us  be  humble  in  his  presence  and  in  the  sphere  of  love  show 
him  the  respect  and  depth  of  an  everlasting  love.  If  we  are 
faithful  to  our  unity  with  our  Lord,  and  our  brethren  in 
blood  are  faithful  to  their  unity  in  the  Lord,  the  Lord  will 
take  care  of  the  proper  adjustment  of  our  unity  to  each 
other. 

THE    UNION    EECOGNIZED    BY    THE    CONFESSIONAL    PRINCIPLE 
OF    THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

Our  union  is  in  the  grace  of  God,  which  has  chosen  us  in 
Christ.  It  is  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  has  been  shed 
for  us,  and  has  delivered  us  from  sin.  It  is  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Who  has  entered  our  heart,  through  the  Word  of 
Christ,  and  made  us  one. 

It  is  in  our  faith,  by  which  we  apprehend,  and  rest  in,  the 
merit  of  Christ.  It  is  in  the  communion  of  Christ's  body, 
of  which  we  have  become  a  part.  It  is  in  the  very  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  which  is  given  an  entrance  into  each  of  us, 
for  the  remission  of  sin  and  the  renewal  of  life. 

Our  union,  the  real  union  of  Christ's  Church  with  itself, 
and  of  the  various  units  with  each  other,  is  an  inner  one, 
is  mediated  through  Christ,  and  is  not  marked  outwardly, 
according  to  our  Augsburg  Confession,  except  by  agreement 
touching  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  This  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  which  is  the  voice  of  Christ,  should  so  influence  every 
member  of  His  body,  that  they  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and 
are  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the 
same  judgment. 


908  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

This  "speaking  the  same  thing"  is  the  Church's  Con- 
fession. It  is  the  result  of  the  Church's  unity,  and  not  the 
cause  of  it.  It  is  not  the  judge,  or  arbiter,  or  determinant 
of  the  Church's  unity,  but  only  the  witness,  the  explanation 
and  the  proof  of  that  union. 

In  actual  fact,  whatever  be  the  reason,  it  is  found  that 
the  Confession  differs  among  Christians;  and  this  brings 
difference  in  outward  organization.  Difference  of  Confes- 
sion, which  implies  an  acknowledgment  of  error  somewhere, 
is  the  one  valid  ground  for  difference  in  organization. 

Our  Lutheran  difference  in  Confession,  in  contrast  with 
Rome,  is  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  a  unity  in  doctrine 
and  faith  and  in  the  sacraments,  and  not  in  any  external 
person  or  thing.  Our  Lutheran  difference  in  Confession, 
in  contrast  with  the  Protestantism  around  us,  is  that  the 
unity  of  the  Church  is  a  real  invisible  unity  of  the  body  with 
the  Head,  through  Word  and  Sacrament ;  and  not  a  depend- 
ency of  each  individual  unit  mediated  directly,  nor  an  out- 
ward and  voluntary  banding  together  of  units  into  organiza- 
tion under  some  indefinite  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Our  unity  has  been  established  from  all  eternity  by  God 
the  Father.  It  is  rooted  in  Christ.  It  is  mediated  through 
Word  and  Sacrament.  It  connects  all  ages  of  the  world  and 
all  true  believers  in  every  clime.  It  is  not  Luther anism,  nor 
any  such  outward  ism  or  body.  We  are  sure  that  the 
Lutheran  faith  is  the  perfect  apprehension  of  that  eternal 
unity,  and  corresponds  with  its  revelation  in  Scripture ;  and 
we  know  by  our  faith  that  the  Lutheran  Confession  is  its 
most  perfect  expression. 

If  we  Lutherans  would  witness  to  the  Faith  in  its  purity, — 
and  to  this  we  are  driven,  if  we  are  true  believers, — we 
must  witness  through  the  form  of  the  Lutheran  Confession. 

The  unimportant  parts  of  the  doctrine  become  important 
in  our  witness,  where  they  are  attacked ;  because  they,  even 
though  unimportant,  come  to  stand  for  the  intrinsic  value 
and  the  integrity  of  the  whole. 


FEDERATION   AND    COOPERATION.     909 

The  expressions  of  the  inner  nnity  in  visible  form,  other 
than  the  truth  or  Confession,  e.  g.,  in  name,  in  ecclesiastical 
constitution  and  government,  and  in  united  action  in  the 
name  of  Christ — though  these  seem  vital  to  us  at  our  short 
range  of  vision — are  of  infinitely  less  importance  than  our 
adherence  to  the  real  inner  unity  in  the  body  of  Christ,  as 
appi-ehended  by  a  pure  faith  and  as  expressed  by  a  pure 
jirinciple. 

For  in  these  latter  alone  lie  the  salvation  and  hope  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  even  upon  earth.  They  are  the  realities. 
They  will  determine  the  future.     They  will  save  the  world. 

The  world  will  never  be  saved  by  "  a  union  of  human 
effort."  Our  united  outward  actions,  no  matter  how  well 
meant,  or  how  well  organized,  or  how  imposing  and  demon- 
strative, or  how  accordant,  are  a  vain  thing,  if  they  are  not 
rooted  in  the  inner  unity  in  Christ ;  and  are  pernicious,  if 
they  are  not  in  accord  with  our  expressed  consciousness  of 
that  inner  unity  in  the  faith.  That  expressed  consciousness 
is  our  Confession. 


61 


CHAPTER   XLI. 

THE  COXFESSIOTsTAL  PRllSTCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  COxXCORD  AND  THE  BROTHERHOOD 

OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

The  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  and  Christian  Love  and  Charity 
— The  Question  of  Tolerance — The  Question  of  the  Manifestation  of  the 
Church's  Essential  Unity — The  Question  of  the  Majority  in  Religion — The 
Question  of  a  Visible  Unity  in  Protestantism — The  Attitude  of  Lutherans 
Toward  the  Confessional  Principle  Revealed  in  their  Attitude  Toward  Denomi- 
national Protestantism. 

THE    QUESTION    OF    CONSCIENCE,     CONFESSIONAL     PRINCIPLE, 
AND   CHARITY. 

EVERY  Church  that  has  a  conscience,  like  every  man  in 
business  life  who  has  a  conscience,  will  be  obliged  at 
some  point  and  at  some  time  to  take  its  stand  on  principle. 
To  remain  firm  in  principle,  and  appear  gracious  and  true  in 
love,  is  not  easy,  even  where  all  tlie  elements  of  Christian 
love  are  really  present.  Where  selfishness,  partisanship  and 
other  considerations  abound,  the  situation  becomes  even  more 
dijfficult.  Every  Church  Body  that  is  honestly  trying  to  be 
firm  in  principle  and  gracious  in  love  may  expect  to  be 
misrepresented  by  those  in  whose  pathway  its  principle  is  an 
unpleasant  obstacle. 

When  deep  conviction  on  the  one  side,  and  the  lack  of 
it  on  another,  is  revealed  between  those  who  love,  it  is 
possible,  in  the  things  of  earth,  to  put  the  rock  of  offense  out 
of  sight,  and  sod  it  over  into  a  beautiful  and  inviting  lawn. 

910 


TO  LEU  Ay  CE   AND    BROTHEnUOOD.      911 

But  if  such  couvictious  concern  fundamental  facts  of  char- 
acter, or  precious  principles  which  God  Himself  has  revealed 
for  man's  salvation,  if  they  concern  the  Person  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  the  communication  of  His  strength  in  Word  and 
sacrament,  the  preservation  of  His  Church  from  the  bondage 
of  Pelagian  or  humanistic  error,  the  evaluation  of  means 
that  He  has  given  to  us  in  the  application  of  the  sacrifice 
which  He  has  made,  a  difference  in  Confessional  conviction 
cannot  be  put  out  of  siglit.  It  is  not  a  barrier  artificially  set 
up,  but  a  deep  and  narrow  gulf  which  really  divides. 

The  Christian  world  to-day  no  longer  sets  such  lofty 
value  on  principle.  The  great  idea  of  the  age  is  that 
Cliristians  should,  as  the  world  states  it,  "  get  together." 
Every  conviction  that  stands  in  the  way  of  a  cultivation,  a 
manifestation,  or  a  realization  of  brotherhood  between  those 
whose  convictions  would  oblige  them  to  differ,  as  Melanch- 
thon  and  Luther  did  from  Zwingli  and  Bucer  at  jMarburg, 
can  look  to  no  other  fate,  no  matter  how  wide  its  charity 
and  how  honorably  its  love  flow  out  toward  its  neighbor,  than 
to  be  regarded  as  narrow  in  outlook,  sectarian  in  faith,  big- 
oted in  spirit,  and  intolerant  in  action. 

THE    QUESTION    OF    TOLERANCE. 

There  is  no  subject  more  difficult  to  treat  confessionally 
than  that  of  tolerance.  The  earnestness  of  men  in  their 
faith,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  old  Adam,  varies  in- 
versely Avith  their  willingness  to  endure  men  of  another  faith. 
Conversely,  the  laxity  of  men  in  their  religious  convic- 
tions varies  directly  as  their  temperament  to  be  broad  of 
vision,  gracious  in  communication,  and  sympathetic  in  feel- 
ing toward  those  of  another  party.  Hence  a  celebrated 
English  writer  has  told  us  that  "The  responsibility  of  toler- 
ance lies  with  those  who  have  the  wider  vision;"  and  a 
celebrated  Ercneh  writer,  whose  humanity  may  be  estimated 
at  its  maximum,  and  his  spirituality  at  its  minimum,  has 


912  THE    LU  THE  BAN    CONFESSIONS. 

declared  that  "Tolerance  is  the  best  religion;"  while  a  clas- 
sic essayist  in  the  sphere  of  social  order  has  observed  that 
"Tolerance  is  the  only  real  test  of  civilization." 

Archbishop  Whately,  with  some  insight  once  remarked  that 
"Tolerance  is  rather  a  matter  of  temper  than  of  principle," 
but  he  felt  himself  constrained  to  admit — an  admission 
which  is  the  opposite  of  what  is  nsiially  expected — that  "  As 
far  as  principles  are  concerned,  certainly  the  latitudinarian 
is  the  more  likely  to  be  intolerant,  and  a  sincerely  conscien- 
tious man  tolerant."  It  requires  the  very  highest  degree  of 
Christian  conviction,  Christian  sympathy,  and  Christian 
tactfulness  to  be  both  firm  and  tolerant.  Mere  tolerance  in 
itself,  as  already  has  been  intimated,  is  not  a  mark  of  religion 
at  all,  but  of  civilization;  Isidor  van  Cleff  was  not  entirely 
in  the  wrong  when  he  pointed  out  that  "Tolerance  does  not 
mark  the  progress  of  a  religion.  It  is  the  fatal  sign  of  its 
decline."  Thomas  Carlyle  takes  the  same  view,  in  touching 
on  this  very  point  in  his  discussion  of  Martin  Luther  and 
John  Knox.  He  says :  "  We  blame  Knox  for  his  intole- 
rance." "  Well,  surely,  it  is  good  that  each  of  us  be  tolerant 
as  possible.  Tolerance  is  to  be  noble,  measured,  just  in  its 
very  wrath,  when  it  can  tolerate  no  longer.  But  we  are  not 
altogether  here  to  tolerate!  We  are  here  to  resist  and  van- 
quish withal.  We  do  not  '  tolerate '  iniquities  when  they 
fasten  on  us ;  we  say  to  them,  '  Thou  art  false.'  We  are  here 
to  extinguish  Falsehoods  in  some  wise  way !  I  will  not  quar- 
rel so  much  with  the  way ;  the  doing  of  the  thing  is  our  great 
concern.  Order  is  Truth,, — each  thing  standing  on  the  basis 
that  belongs  to  it.  Smooth  Falsehood  is  not  Order.  Order 
and  Falsehood  cannot  subsist  together."  In  speaking  of 
Luther  before  the  Diet  at  Worms,  Carlyle  pictures  him  as 
respectful,  wise,  honest, — submissive  to  whatsoever  could 
claim  submission,  "  not  submissive  to  any  more  than  that." 

"Great  wars  and  contentions  and  disunion  followed  out 
of  this  Reformation;  which  last  down  to  our  day,  and  are  yet 
far  from  ended.     Great  crimination  has  been  made  about 


20LEKANCE   AND    BROTHERHOOD.      913 

these.  But  after  all,  what  has  Luther  or  his  cause  to  do 
with  that?  Luther  and  his  Protestantism  is  not  responsible 
for  wars.  Luther  answered  Falsehood  with  T^o !  not  count- 
ing the  costs.  Union,  organiziation,  far  nobler  than  any 
Popedom,  is  coming  to  the  world  ;  but  on  Fact  alone,  not  on 
Semblance  will  it  be  able  to  come  and  to  stand.  With  union 
grounded  on  falsehood  we  will  not  have  anything  to  do.  A 
brutal  lethargy  is  peaceable,  the  noisome  grave  is  peaceable. 
We  hope  for  a  living  peace,  not  a  dead  one! 

"I  will  add  now  that  the  controversy  did  not  get  to  fight- 
ing so  long  as  Luther  was  living.  Plow  seldom  do  we  find 
a  man  Avho  has  stirred  up  some  vast  commotion,  who  does 
not  himself  perish,  swept  away  in  it !  Such  is  the  usual 
course  of  revolutionists.  Luther  held  it  peaceable,  continued 
firm  at  the  centre  of  it.  A  man  to  do  this  must  have  the 
gift  to  discern  where  the  heart  of  the  matter  lies  and  to  plant 
himself  on  that  as  a  strong  true  man.  Luther's  clear  deep 
force  of  judgment,  of  silence,  of  tolerance  aud  moderation, 
are  very  notable. 

"Tolerance,  I  say;  a  very  genuine  kind  of  tolerance.  A 
complaint  comes  to  him  that  such  aud  such  a  Reformed 
preacher  'will  not  preach  without  a  cassock.'  Well,  answers 
Luther,  what  harm  will  a  cassock  do  the  man  ?  'Let  him  have 
a  cassock  to  preach  in ;  let  him  have  three  cassocks  if  he  find 
benefit  in  them !'  His  conduct  in  the  matter  of  Karlstadt's 
wild  image-breaking;  of  the  Anabaptists;  of  the  Peasants' 
War,  shows  a  noble  strength,  very  different  from  spasmodic 
violence.  With  sure  prompt  insight  he  discriminates  what 
is  what:  a  strong  just  man,  he  speaks  forth  what  is  the  wise 
course,  and  all  men  follow  him  in  that." 

For  humanity  Luther  had  tolerance,  but  not  for  men  of 
impure  motives.  For  heretics  he  had  tolerance,  but  not  for 
politicians.  For  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  who  was  arrayed 
against  him,  he  had  tolerance,  but  not  for  "the  wolves  with 
whom  he  was  surrounded."  Luther  had  no  tolerance  for 
dishonesty  or  corruption.     For  men  who  were  willing  to  con- 


914  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

ceal,  or  abate  from  their  principles  in  order  to  unity,  lie  had 
nothing  but  contempt. 

He  did  not  see  the  importance  or  necessity  of  union  or 
federation  in  the  forces  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  strat- 
egic marshaling  of  the  earthly  forces  of  the  Church  were  of 
no  account  to  him.  The  power  with  which  he  shook  the 
world  was  not  union,  but  Confession ;  while  the  lack  of  power 
in  which  Melanchthon  failed  to  impress  the  world  was  not 
Confession,  but  the  attempt  at  union.  When  he  believed  in 
the  integrity  of  the  Pope,  of  Zwingli,  of  Bucer,  of  Melanch- 
thon, Luther  was  patient  and  tolerant;  but  wlien  his  eye  was 
opened  to  the  corruption  of  the  Papacy,  his  outbursts  of 
indignation  were  tremendous.  Luther,  by  his  outspoken 
sincerity,  has  gained  the  reputation  for  intolerance,  while 
the  Pope  who  was  more  intolerant  of  Luther  than  Luther  was 
of  him,  is  able  to  pose  in  history  in  the  attitude  of  cultured 
tolerance. 

The  Question  of  the  Brothekhood  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  and  the  Manifestation  of  its  Essential 
Unity. 

The  judgment  as  to  the  Christian  Church  is  almost  univer- 
sal, that  it  is  her  duty  to  be  more  tlian  tolerant  toward  ecclesi- 
astical organizations  whose  doctrine  she  may  not  approve. 
The  great  duty  of  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  eyes  of  tlie 
world,  is  to  express  the  Essential  Unity  in  which  all  its 
separate  organizations  must,  in  their  view,  be  grounded, 
and  to  emphasize  the  Brotherhood  which  they  constitute. 
From  our  point  of  view,  this  identification  of  the  visible 
ecclesiastical  organizations  now  claiming  to  be  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ  on  earth,  or  parts  thereof,  is  neither  neces- 
sary, possible,  nor  desirable. 

It  is  not  the  organization,  but  the  principle,  which  ex- 
presses the  unity.  To  insist  on  the  visibility  of  the  unity, 
and  to  emphasize  the  visible  unity  of  Christianity  as  the 
goal  of  Christian  endeavor,  is  to  fall  once  again  into  the 


TOLERANCE   AND   BROTHERHOOD.      915 

ancient  and  destructive  error  of  Rome.  The  Kingdom  of 
God  cometli  not  with  observation.  The  visualization  of  the 
Church  means  its  externalization.  To  emphasize  the  idea 
of  the  visible  Church,  and  the  importance  of  its  earthly 
union,  is  one  of  the  colossal  short-sighted  mistakes  of  this 
age.  The  only  unity  of  the  Church  that  is  vital  is  the  unity 
of  the  Faith,  and  the  oneness  of  the  objects  of  that  Faith. 

^Ye  do  not  establish  this  unity.  It  is  already,  and  has 
ever  existed.  It  does  not  depend  upon  the  coming  together  of 
the  visible  denominations  on  earth  that  call  themselves  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  way  in  which  the  visible  Churches 
are  to  realize  and  represent  the  invisible  and  original  spir- 
itual unity  is  for  each  of  them  to  approximate  and  reproduce 
it  in  completeness.  To  approximate  other  visible  Churches, 
which  are  themselves  inferior  to  the  original,  and  only  imper- 
fect images  of  it,  is  a  great  mistake. 

This  mistake  is  productive  of  three  evil  results.  First, 
we  get  on  earth  a  composite  picture  or  imitation  of  the  orig- 
inal (in  which  extent  and  quantity  count  for  more  than 
quality)  instead  of  a  vital  reproduction  of  the  original  unity. 

Second,  we  lay  undue  emphasis,  in  line  with  the  Roman 
Church,  on  the  visibility  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  at  the 
expense  of  the  inner  conviction  of  the  individual  conscience, 
and  of  the  absolute  supremacy,  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  of 
Testimony  to  the  Truth,  by  the  Scriptural  activity  of  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  This  was  the  exact  force  of  the  point  of 
our  Saviour  against  Pontius  Pilate,  when  Pilate,  with  the 
visible  grandeur  of  imperial  Rome  back  of  him,  scoffed  at  the 
supremacy  of  purely  spiritual  power,  manifest  through  Testi- 
mony, and  exclaimed,  "  What  is  Truth  ?  "  Jesus  had  told 
him,  "My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world:  if  my  Kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight."  Pilate 
asked  Him,  "Are  you  really  King  ?"  Jesus  answered,  "Thou 
sayest  that  I  am  a  King.  To  this  end  was  I  bom,  and  for 
this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  hear  witness 
unto  the  Truth.    Every  one  that  is  of  the  Truth,  heareth  my 


916  THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

voice."  The  Kingship  of  Christ,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
according  to  these  words,  are  not  of  the  order  of  earthly  or- 
ganization, but  are  a  Kingshij)  and  a  Kingdom  of  Truth, 
which  is  established  simply  and  solely  by  the  power  of 
"  Witness,''  or  "  Confession." 

The  third  mistake  in  the  attempt  to  represent  the  Kingdom 
of  God  by  drawing  the  Chnrches  together  into  an  earthly 
brotherhood  is,  that,  in  so  far  as  the  undertaking  proves  to 
be  a  success,  it  will  also  prove  to  be  the  setting  up  of  an 
ecclesiastical  rule  by  a  majority,  as  the  major  centripetal 
force;  and  will  thus,  for  the  sake  of  an  aggregate  of  earthly 
power  residing  in  a  majority,  override  the  supremacy  of  the 
Confessional  force  of  the  Truth  as  it  resides  in  the  real  but 
small  group  of  consciences  that  believe  and  confess  alike ;  and 
will  therefore  be  in  danger  of  sacrificing  the  Truth  and  our 
apprehension  of  it,  the  Faith,  which  is  the  power  of  the 
Church,  for  the  sake  of  a  visible  demonstration  of  a  unity 
which  does  not  exist  in  conscience  and  in  the  Confessional 
principle  of  the  Truth. 

THE   QI'ESTION    OF   ^MAJORITY   IX   REEIOTOX. 

Thus  we  come  to  a  new  Romanism  in  the  Protestant 
World,  in  which  decisions  in  the  sphere  of  faith,  instead 
of  being  made  by  those  in  spiritual  unity,  will,  for  the  sake 
of  tlie  additional  power  which  the  weight  of  numbers  confers, 
and  of  a  combined  action  in  external  unity,  be  determined  by 
the  new  American  religious  papacy,  whose  name  is  The  Ma- 
jority. 

Questions  of  Truth,  "Right,  Faith,  and  spiritual  action 
in  the  Church  of  Christ  cannot  be  settled  by  the  external 
and  legal  method  of  vote,  but  must  be  determined  by  the 
vital  and  voluntary  method  of  Confession. 

THE  DREAM    OF   A   VISIBLE   CHURCH. 

The  fundamental  unity  of  the  whole  Christ  in  Christianity 
will    I  Kit  be  exhibited   in  visible  organic  form.      The  Greek 


TOLERANCE   AND   BROTHERHOOD.      917 

and  the  Roman  establisliments  will  not  exhibit  it  except  on 
terms  to  which  the  Protestant  cannot  in  conscience  accede; 
and  if  all  Protestants  in  the  Avorld  were  to  combine  into 
organic  fraternity,  thev  could  exhibit  the  fundamental  unity 
of  Christianity  only  as  a  part,  and  not  as  a  whole.  If  we  ex- 
clude the  ecclesiastical  frame  of  authority  from  this  at- 
tempted unity,  we  still  find  the  rationalistic  frame  among  us 
as  Protestants.  If  we  exclude  the  rationalistic  frame  of  au- 
thority, Luthcranism  is  still  confronted  with  fundamental  di- 
vergencies in  Protestantism, — as  to  the  great  principles  of  tlie 
Word  and  Sacraments,  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ,  as  to  justi- 
fication by  faith  alone  and  not  by  works  (Synergism,  Salva- 
tion by  Law),  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  separa- 
tion of  civil  affairs  from  the  things  of  God, — on  which  we 
cannot  unite,  and  as  to  which  we  cannot — without  the  most 
thorough  understanding  and  respect  for  each  minor  part — 
work  in  common,  without  being  bound  in  conscience. 

The  stand  thus  taken  by  Confessional  Lutheranism  is  a 
stand  for  conscience.  It  is  not  a  stand  for  legal  Confession- 
alism,  but  a  stand  for  the  gospel  Confession. 


THE  QUESTION   OF  A  VISIBLE  UNITY   OF  PROTESTANTISM. 

The  Saviour  nowhere  emphasizes  the  fundamental  unity 
of  Protestant  Christianity.  He  points  to  an  ultimate  unity, 
and  he  prays  that  it  may  be  realized:  "That  they  may  all 
be  one ;"  but  He  does  not  justify  its  manifestation  where  it 
does  not  exist. 

And  He  does  not  say  "That  they  may  all  be  one."  He  says, 
"That  they  may  all  be  one;  as  tliou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us."  He  emphasizes 
the  absolute  unity.  The  point  is  not  a  mere  relative  or 
approximate  unity,  an  occasional  interchange  of  courtesy, 
but  an  inner  union  of  substance  and  nature.  He  takes  fur- 
ther pains  to  show  what  kind  of  oneness  He  refers  to.  He 
prays,  "that  they  may  be  7nade  perfect  in  one."     And  He 


918  THE    LUTHERAN   COXEESSIONS. 

shows  us  the  only  source  of  that  oneness.  ''  Sanctify  them 
through  thy  truth.  Thy  word  is  truth.  Xeither  pray  I  for 
these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me 
through  thy  word." 

The  source  of  this  unity  is  the  Word.  Its  character  is  a 
unity  of  faith  on  the  basis  of  the  "Word.  It  is  not  a  unity 
based  on  "the  amenities  of  religious  people  toward  each 
other."  It  is  not  a  unity  which  says,  "  It  is  of  no  concern 
what  you  believe,  vce  all  are  one ;"  but  it  is  a  unity  that  says, 
"We  are  all  one,  for  we  all  have  the  one  faith,  the  one  bap- 
tism, the  one  God  and  Father  of  all."  All  true  believers  do 
have  one  Faith.    But  are  all  faiths  one  ? 

It  is  not  true  that  all  Christians  are  one ;  but  it  is  true 
that  there  is  a  true  unity  in  the  Faith.  For  this,  it  is  our 
duty  to  make  every  sacrifice.  You  say,  "  Let  us  forget  our 
differences,  and  be  nelghhorly."  We  say,  "  Let  us  resolve 
our  differences,  and  be  one."  The  denominations  cannot 
"  all  be  one,"  iinlcss  they  give  up  that  which  they  have  no 
intention  of  giving  up.  It  is  impossible  for  parts  of  the 
visible  church  to  reproduce  the  inner  and  essential  unity 
of  the  invisible  Chnrch,  and  still  intend  to  continue  a  di- 
vided denominational  life.  If  a  man  and  a  woman  claim 
they  are  in  unity  with  each  other,  it  is  not  for  them  to 
be  satisfied  "with  an  occasional  interchange  of  courtesies," 
or  with  semi-annual  meals  of  friendship  in  social  union; 
but  one  of  them  must  make  up  her  mind  to  give  up  her 
name,  and  both  must  give  up  all  else  and  realize  their  life 
in  a   common   home. 

The  unity  that  Christ  asks  is  not  a  unity  of  occasional 
courtesy,  or  merely  a  unity  of  name,  or  a  unity  of  diplomatic 
poise  of  separate  forces ;  but  He  wants  a  unity  of  conviction, 
a  unity  of  teaching,  a  unity  of  principle,  a  unity  of  doctrine. 
We  are  to  be  one  in  the  faith. 

An  occasional  interchange  of  courtesies,  a  sending  of  one 
man  into  the  pulpit  of  another  denomination  to  preach  one 
sermon,  who  comes  back  unchanged  and  cintiuuo?  to  preach 


TO  LEE  AS  C  E    AXD    BROTH  ERIIOOD.      did 

as  he  did  before  in  his  own  pulijit,  an  authorization  of  a 
member  in  one  denomination  to  commune  occasionally  in  a 
denomination  of  different  faith,  not  only  fails  to  show  the  * 
inner  unity  which  Christ  desires ;  but  deceives  the  people 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  unity  that  Christ  desires.  That  is 
the  kind  of  union  which  rests  on  nothing;  is  responsible 
for  nothing;  and  accomplishes  nothing;  but  simply  makes 
people  "  feci  good !  "  They  delude  themselves  in  a  unity  that 
has  ignored,  not  cleansed,  its  falsehoods;  that  has  forgotten, 
not  resolved,  its  differences. 

Their  union  has  no  intention  of  becoming  even  a  thorough- 
going external  union  ;  much  less,  does  it  touch  the  inner  hurt. 
It  says :  "  The  bones  are  broken :  it  is  too  painful  to  set  them : 
let  us  bind  and  mollify  the  skin,  that  the  world  may  behold 
that  we  are  one." 

"We  say,  The  Christian  Church  is  the  one  important  organ- 
ism in  the  world.  Its  bones  are  its  principles,  its  doctrines, 
its  truth.  With  the  advent  of  the  l^ew  Theology  into  Amer- 
ican Christianity,  the  broken  bones  are  numerous.  They 
include  the  following  principles :  the  Scriptures,  the  Word  of 
God,  the  Trinity,  Original  Sin,  the  Person  of  Christ,  the 
Offices  of  Christ,  the  Work  and  Merits  of  Christ,  Justifi- 
cation, Sanctification,  the  Means  of  Grace,  the  Sacraments, 
Judgment  and  Eternal  Life. 

With  these  broken  principles,  American  Protestantism  is 
a  very  weak  man,  as  a  Christian  unity,  and  the  device.  Alli- 
ance, Association,  Federation  is  an  elastic  silk  band,  tied 
with  a  beautiful  white  ribbon,  to  hold  the  members  in  unity, 
"  that  they  may  all  be  one." 

To  set  the  bones  right,  at  any  cost,  to  prevent  a  falso  union, 
to  break  up  every  pseudo  process,  to  keep  up  the  pain  imtil 
the  original  lines  ofi  juncture  are  recovered,  to  be  satisfied 
with  nothing  temporary,  is  it  not  harshness  and  narrow- 
mindedness  on  the  physician's  part  ?  But  is  he  not  right  ?  Is 
he  a  "  mere  bigot  "  because,  in  lack  of  sweet  and  proper 
comity,  he  refuses  to  postpone  the  pain  of  a  proper  operation. 


930  THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

appreciates  the  importance  of  doing  things  right,  and  Avill 
not  sew  np  the  skin  neatly  and  say,  "  Yonr  bones  are  one." 

Is  the  invisible  Church  of  Christ  less  important  than  the 
hnman  body?  Can  its  broken  bones  be  united  by  occasional 
bands  of  interdenominational  courtesy  ?  May  the  Children 
of  the  Lord  say:  Let  us  forget  the  broken  bones,  and  bring 
the  body  together  ?  Is  it  scientific  or  practical  to  attempt 
to  unite  a  broken  Christendom,  except  by  starting  at  the 
original  lines  of  fracture  ?  Is  not  all  sincere  Christendom 
foolish  to  suppose  that  the  breaks  are  merely  a  matter  of 
temperamental  feeling  in  the  patient,  and  that  the  unity  can 
be  knit  together  by  applying  an  occasional  bandage,  but  leav- 
ing the  bones  still  fractured?  The  unity  for  which  the 
Saviour  prayed  was  not  one  of  name  or  feeling  or  work,  but 
one  of  nature  and  principle :  ^^as  ^Ve  are  One." 

It  is  not  a  divided  Christendom,  but  a  partisan  Christian- 
ity, which  is  the  disgrace  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  not 
staunchness  in  type  of  Faith,  but  selfishness  in  an  aggressive 
competition,  that  undermines  the  cause  of  Christ  in  both 
home  and  foreign  fields.  It  is  not  those  who  are  satisfied 
with  their  Faith,  and  labor  and  live  purely  and  peaceably 
under  its  conviction,  who  are  the  mischief-makers  of  Christ- 
endom. To  reunite  Christendom  with  divided  Faiths  is  to 
empty  the  union  of  everything  but  its  name.  To  reunite 
Christendom  by  sacrificing  Faith  is  to  sacrifice  what  is  most 
precious  in  Christendom.  To  reunite  Christendom  by  unit- 
ing or  growing  into  one  Faith,  and  heartily  confessing  the 
same,  is  a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished.  It  is  the 
only  kind  of  union  the  Saviour  prayed  for:  "That  ye  may 
all  be  one,  as  the  Father  and  I  are  one,"  This  is  a  unity  from 
conviction,  and  one  which  will  never  be  manufactured  in  con- 
vention by  compromise,  concession,  and  diplomatic  arrange- 
ment. 

We  teach  in  glaring  contrast  with  many  of  the  American 
denominations  about  us,  that  the  one  important  and  supreme 
thing  in  a  church  is  the  saving  Faith.     We  believe  that  the 


TOLERANCE   AND   BROTHERHOOD.      921 

true  and  ultimate  church  is  the  church  of  the  pure  Faith. 
"Xo  particular  church  has,  on  its  own  showing,  a  right  to 
existence,  except  as  it  believes  itself  to  he  the  most  perfect 
form  of  Christianity,  the  form  which  of  right  should  and 
will  be  universal.  That  communion  which  does  not  believe 
in  the  certainty  of  the  ultimate  acceptance  of  its  principles 
in  the  whole  world  has  not  the  heart  of  a  true  church.  That 
which  claims  to  be  Catholic  de  facto  claims  to  be  universal 
de  jure. 

THE     ATTITUDE     OF     LUTHERANS     TOWAED     DEXOMINATIONAL 
PROTESTANTISM. 

Tlie  different  values  placed  upon  the  Confessional  principle 
in  the  Lutheran  Clnircli  of  America  come  to  light  most 
clearly  in  connection  with  her  varied  attitude  toward  other 
Protestants,  and  particularly  toward  other  Evangelical  bodies. 
These  relations,  especially  in  later  days,  are  looked  to  in 
view  of  a  possibility  of  the  future  solution  of  the  divisions 
of  Protestantism;  and  the  solution  proposed  has  been  of 
three  possible  kinds,  first,  alliance  leading  to  amalgamation; 
second,  federation  leading  to  centralization;  third,  co-oper- 
ation with  an  emphatic  recognition  of  Confessional  differ- 
ences, and  with  a  frank  recognition  and  acceptance  on  each 
side  of  the  limits  of  co-operation.  These  solutions  have  al- 
ready been  treated. 

The  first  two  classes  of  relationship,  viz.,  amalgamation 
and  federation,  proceed  upon  the  assumption  that  essential 
unity  already  exists  in  the  Protestant  Faith, — and  that  an 
essential  oneness  underlies  all  the  Protestant  denominations. 
It  is  assumed,  that  there  is  little  difference  in  fundamentals 
between  those  who  hold  different  denominational  tenets,  and 
that  the  distinctive  tenets  to  be  preserved  are  denominational 
peculiarities.  In  any  event  whether  the  denominational  in- 
dividuality is,  or  is  not,  worth  saving,  there  is  at  least  a 


1  C.   p.   Kraiith. 


922        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

common  Protestant  foundation  beneath  all  the  Evangelical 
denominations. 

The  great  motto  for  those  whose  faith  rests  on  this  basis 
is,  in  necessariis  unitas,  in  dubiis  lihertas,  in  omnihus  caritas. 
The  first  clause  of  this  sa^'ing  is  sonnd,  and  its  last  clause  is 
equally  commendable.  But  a  great  fallacy  lies  concealed  in 
its  middle  clause.  To  confine  liberty  to  merely  doubtful 
things  is  giving  it  a  very  narrow  berth  indeed.  There  must 
be  liberty,  and  deep  conviction  arrived  at  and  held  in  Scrip- 
tural liberty,  in  necessary  things.  This  is  absolutely  essential 
for  the  existence  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  truth.  And 
there  must  also  be  liberty  in  the  exercise  of  charity,  that  is, 
it  must  spring  from  the  free  will  and  intent  of  the  heart. 

But  as  the  motto  is  generally  used,  the  central  clause  be- 
comes a  catch-all  into  which  to  consign  all  principles  and 
doctrines  that  are  likely  to  give  trouble.  This  becomes  the 
significant  feature  of  the  whole  motto  and  is  promotive  of 
doctrinal  indifferentism.  It  is  not  true  that  our  faith  is  di- 
vided into  necessary  things  and  doubtful  things.  It  may  be 
divided  into  necessary  things  and  unnecessary  things,  or 
adiaphora.  But  a  man  may  hold  doubts  on  every  one  of  the 
most  important  of  all  the  articles  of  faith.  The  second  clause 
of  this  motto  will  undermine  the  first.  There  should  be  con- 
viction on  all  points  on  which  it  is  possible  to  reach  it ;  and 
faith,  in  liberty,  should  stretch  its  wiug  over  other  points. 
The  last  clause  is  admirable.  As  Dr.  Schaff  says,  "  Honest 
and  earnest  controversy  promotes  true  and  lasting  union. 
Polemics  looks  to  irenics — the  aim  of  war  is  peace." 


CHAPTER   XLII. 
THE  COXFESSIOXAL  PPJXCIPLE  OF  THE  BOOK 

OF  co:n^cord  axd  the  futuee  of  the 

CHURCH  IN  AMERICA. 

The  Field  of  the  Confessional  Principle  in  America — It  is  to  leaven  all  Ke- 
lations — The  three  separated  spheres  of  Faith,  Love,  and  Law,  and  the  three 
separate  institutions  of  Church,  Home  and  State,  not  properly  Distinguished  by 
Radical  and  Reformed  Protestantism — The  Lutheran  Solution  of  Religious 
Problems  in  America — Reformed  Results — Lutheran  Results — The  Confessional 
Principle  not  a  Hindrance  to  the  Future  Church — Will  Broaden  the  Church — 
Recapitulation  of  the  Argument  of  this  book — Conclusion. 

HERE  in  America  the  Confessional  Principle  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  will  find  a  free  field  for  baptizing 
and  teaching  the  nations,  for  its  own  implantation,  and  for 
the  guidance  and  control  of  the  whole  Christian  life.  In  this 
land  the  State  has  as  yet  laid  no  hand  on  the  Church  or  on 
the  Home,  except  that  there  is  a  growing  tendency  on  its 
part  to  the  assimiption  of  the  right  of  an  exclnsive  hold  on 
all  public  higher  and  lower  education. 

And  the  door  is  open  to  the  Church  to  enter  with  its  full 
strength  and  in  its  own  way  to  prosecute  the  work  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  Our  Confessional  princij^le  can  labor  for  right- 
eousness, peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  let  or 
hindrance.  The  power  of  the  Confessional  principle  must 
and  should  penetrate  and  leaven  all  relations,  spiritual,  so- 
cial, ecclesiastical,  civil,  national,  municipal,  educational, 
commercial,  and  physical.    The  principle  of  Christianity,  with 

923 


924        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

its  laws  of  family,  personal,  and  brotherly  relations,  includes 
in  its  scope  the  whole  of  human  life,  and  our  Confession  fully 
realizes  this  fact. 

Christ  is  a  universal  principle,  and  nothing  in  the  spirit- 
ual or  social  order  can  escape  accountability  to  Him.  Our 
Christianity  provides  a  life  complete  in  all  its  aspects  and 
relations.  It  ia  itself  the  life  that  is  most  full  and  whole. 
To  live  it  here  on  earth  is  life  eternal.  The  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  which  deals  no  less  with  the  social  than  with  the  more 
spiritual  and  religious  relations  of  men  in  the  Church  of 
God,  shows  us  that  the  Church  has  universal  obligations,  and 
has  to  do  with  the  ideals,  the  hopes,  and  the  laws  of  hu- 
man society,  in  so  far  as  these  present  themselves  in  personal 
and  spiritual  form. 

Christ  has  set  up  not  merely  a  spiritual,  but  a  social  claim 
upon  the  individual,  as  a  member  in  particular  of  His  Body, 
and  it  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  Christian's  life  to  see  that 
Christian  standards  are  upheld  and  are  extended,  in  their 
true  application  to  economic,  industrial,  and  political  forms, 
whether  in  neighborhoods,  states  or  in  nations. 

For  Christians,  from  the  pastor,  as  primus  inter  pares, 
down  to  the  humblest  member,  to  hold  themselves  aloof  from 
the  actual  and  real  life  of  men  and  nations,  and,  for  fear  of 
committing  or  entangling  themselves,  not  to  engage  in  the 
political,  social,  industrial  or  economic  problems  of  the  day, 
is  a  sectarian,  and  not  a  Lutheran  principle,  as  not  only  the 
sixteenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  proves,  but  also 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

If  we  believe  that  all  true  progress  along  spiritual  and 
moral  lines  in  modern  civilization  is  the  result  of  Christian 
ideals  worked  out  into  practice,  the  Christian  conscience 
needs  to  be  as  active  to-day  against  great  sins  and  moral  in- 
fection, and  the  word  and  act  of  the  Christian  need  to  be  as 
strong  and  decided  in  behalf  of  the  law  of  God,  as  they  ever 
were  in  the  heroic  ages  of  the  past.  The  Church,  too,  as  the 
body  of  Christ,  needs  to  keep  herself  clear  from  the  apparent 


TUE   FUTURE.  925 

or  passive  acceptance  of  a  controlling  order  of  society,  which, 
while  it  may  be  willing  to  minister  to  ecclesiastical  comfort, 
in  its  own  pathway  does  violence  to  the  laws  and  the  purpose 
of  the  kingdom  of  our  God. 

The  distinction  so  plausibly  made  in  the  ethical  life  of 
many  Christians,  between  religion  and  business,  between  pol- 
itics and  Christianity,  between  society  and  the  Church,  has 
no  foundation  in  the  Lutheran  Confession.  To  the  Lu- 
theran there  is  no  such  possibility  as  the  separation  between 
the  spiritual,  moral  and  confessional  principles  of  the  Church 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  principles  of  earthly  life  on  the 
other.  There  is  no  deed  or  aspiration  of  our  life  as  Chris- 
tians, w^hether  private  or  public,  into  which  the  full  content 
of  our  Christian  Confession  does  not  enter  as  the  determin- 
ative factor.  Our  institutional,  social,  corporate,  or  other 
organized  power  in  this  world,  our  influence  on  society,  the 
application  of  our  activities  to  the  affairs  of  the  day,  are  to 
be  determined  solely  by  our  ultimate  spiritual,  that  is  our 
confessional  principle.  We  are  to  work  and  to  work  to- 
gether in  the  real  and  actual  things  of  life,  under  the  Confes- 
sion which  we  maintain  as  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
Yet  this  is  not  to  say  that  the  Church  is  to  be  organized 
into  a  solid  body  for  moral  interests  or  for  the  ex- 
ecution of  such  higher  social,  political,  philanthropic, 
or  economic  theory  as  would  seem  to  be  a  great  im- 
provement on  existing  institutions.  The  Church  is  not 
here  to  work  out,  in  a  corporate  or  organized  capacity,  the 
great  political,  industrial,  social,  and  moral  problems  that 
face  men  and  society  at  every  turn.  It  is  surprising  that  the 
advanced  religious  tliinkers  of  this  age,  conscious  in  other 
lines  of  the  necessity  of  a  strict  application  of  the  modern 
doctrine  of  differentiation  of  function  to  the  forms  of  a  com- 
plex civilization,  do  not  see  the  importance  of  its  application 
in  the  religious  sphere.  It  is  amazing  to  note  how  passively 
they  permit  the  functions  of  the  State  and  the  Home  in  the 
warfare  for  righteousness,  to  decline  to  a  rudimentary  stage, 

63 


92C         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

and  how  actively  they  throw  all  the  duties  of  public  life, 
reform  and  training  upon  the  Church/ 

To  make  use  of  the  social  and  corporate  power  of  the 
Church  as  a  public  lever  to  apply  to  the  reform  of  abuses,  and 
the  uplifting  of  social  institutions,  leads  straight  to  Rome. 
The  visible  unity  of  God's  people  on  earth,  maintained  arid 
applied  politically  and  diplomatically,  and  in  an  organized 
and  corporate  way,  for  the  uplifting  of  society,  the  attempt 
to  assemble  the  whole  Family  of  God  as  a  visible  and  organ- 
ized conmiunity,  into  one  movement,  cannot  but  shatter  many 
principles,  among  which  are  liberty  of  conscience,  the  essen- 
tial spirituality  of  religious  faith,  and  the  invisible  and 
eternal  order  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  There  is  a  way  in 
which  the  Confessional  Principle  of  Lutheranism  is  funda- 
mentally contributory  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  social  and 
moral  life  of  the  nation,  but  it  is  not  a  way  humanly  planned 
and  devised ;  it  is  the  old,  the  substantial,  the  solid  way 
pointed  out  by  the  Word  of  God  itself. 

The  great  confusion  in  American  religious  life  and  effort, 
under  the  control  of  Reformed  Protestant  ideas,  in  which  the 
Lutheran  Confessional  principle  seems  decidedly  out  of  joint 
with  the  times,  has  been  the  failure  to  distinguish  clearly 
between  the  spheres  of  the  three  divine  institutions,  the 
Church,  the  Home  and  the  State,  and  their  intrinsic  activi- 
ties. 

Hence  the  degeneracy  of  the  Home  and  the  corruption  of 
the  State  in  this  age  roll  in  iipon  the  Cliurch,  and,  under  the 
Reformed  principle,  demand  to  be  lifted  away  mechanically 
and  immediately,  instead  of  being  resolved  spiritually  and 
gradually  under  the  transforming  and  upbuilding  power  of 
the  Law  and  the  Gospel  in  the  conscience  and  the  heart  in 
accord  with  God's  unfailing  processes  of  vital  growth.     Re- 


*  The  explanation  of  this  situation  is  to  be  found  In  the  disproportionate 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  things  of  our  earthly  life  here  and  now,  in  com- 
parison with  the  things  of  eternal  life.  The  life  of  God  seems  to  be 
almost  absorbed  and  fulfilled  in  the  religion  of  the  day  in  the  life  toward 
our  neighbor. 


THE   FUTURE.  927 

form  by  overthrow,  the  radical  ])rinc'iple,  can  organize  for 
destructive  triumph,  but  vital  unity  is  required  for  the  nat- 
ural gTOwth  of  constructive  and  permanent  triumph. 

The  Lutheran  Confession  has  a  solution  for  our  American 
social  problems,  and  a  sphere  for  the  constructive  activities 
of  the  Christian  spirit.  This  solution,  which  is  not  of  the 
order  of  a  galvanic  spasm  induced  to  regulate  or  restore  vir- 
tue falling  into  ruins  in  the  land,  is  as  deep  and  thorough- 
going, as  conservative  and  real  as  its  own  nature.  It  is  not 
dependent  upon  great  conventions  and  grand  effects  repre- 
senting— nominally — so  many  millions  of  people,  but  it  can 
be  begun  wherever  two  or  three  persons  are  gathered  to- 
gether as  a  congregation  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  who,  instead 
of  sending  on  a  delegation  to  influence  the  Senate  and  Repre- 
sentatives at  Washington,  set  themselves  humbly  at  work  to 
transform  their  own  patch  of  wilderness,  until  it  shall  bloom 
and  blossom  as  the  rose. 

The  very  first  step  in  this  work  under  the  Confessional 
Principle  is  a  clear  and  abiding  distinction  between  the  three 
great  divine  institutions,  the  Home,  the  State,  and  the 
Church.  This  involves  also  the  distinction  between  the  ob- 
jects, the  powers  and  the  methods  of  each  institution. 

The  work  of  the  Church  is  in  the  sphere  of  faith ;  the 
work  of  the  Home  is  in  the  sphere  of  love;  the  work  of  the 
State  is  in  the  sphere  of  law. 

The  object  of  the  Church  is  the  upbuilding  of  the  spirit; 
the  object  of  the  Home  is  the  upbuilding  of  the  man  in  him- 
self and  in  his  relation  to  society ;  and  the  object  of  the  State 
is  the  upholding  of  liberty,  equity,  stability  of  organic  and 
individual  equilibrium,  protection  of  property  and  life,  pub- 
lic justice.  The  real  power  in  the  Church  is  Spiritual  Re- 
generation; the  power  in  the  Home  and  Society  is  intelligent 
conjoint  development  in  Love;  the  power  of  the  State  is  in- 
telligent preventive,  education,  and  iucitation  by  Law.  Ex- 
cept as  a  matter  of  public  justice  or  public  order,  the  State 
as  such  possesses  neither  the  power  nor  the  right  to  advance 


928         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

personal  righteousness,  nor  to  fix  the  ethical  goal  of  person- 
ality. 

The  mode  of  the  Church  is  Spiritual ;  the  mode  of  the 
Home  is  Social  and  Civil ;  the  mode  of  the  State  is  Civil  and 
Political. 

The  principle  of  the  Church  is  Confessional,  by  witness 
to  the  truth ;  the  principle  of  the  Home  is  Constructive,  by 
deeds  issuing  into  character  and  into  social  result;  the 
principle  of  the  State  is  Regulative,  by  equitable  and  in- 
flexible adjustment  of  physical,  social,  and  political  condi- 
tions. 

In  the  Church,  the  distinctive  emphasis  is  on  faith,  with 
love  and  action  included.  In  the  Home,  the  distinctive  em- 
phasis is  on  love,  with  faith  and  reliable  action  included. 
In  the  State — as  civil  or  as  Society — the  distinctive  emphasis 
is  on  reliable  action  with  faith  and  love  included.  In  the 
State — as  political — the  distinctive  emphasis  is  on  Law,  with 
faith  in  the  natural  form  of  dependence  on  the  invisible 
source  of  Truth  and  Righteousness,  and  Love  in  the  social 
form  of  equal  rights  for  the  weakest  and  the  strong. 

The  State  has  no  right  to  compel  us  to  love,  and  the  Church 
has  no  right  to  compel  us  to  act.  The  Home,  in  its  wider 
sense,  as  the  center  of  our  personal  and  unorganized  life,  as 
the  place  from  which  radiate  forth  our  work,  our  recreation, 
and  our  social  contacts,  has  the  right  to  train  and  to  urge  us 
both  as  to  the  inner  love  and  the  outer  act.  In  the  Home 
center  all  educational,  all  intellectual,  and  reading  agencies. 
Above  it  hover  all  personal  and  social  ideals.  It  receives 
strength  and  inspiration  from  the  Church,  it  gives  strength 
and  quality,  quality  moral  and  physical,  to  the  State.  The 
work  of  the  Home  or  Family  cannot  be  done  successfully 
by  either  the  Church  or  the  State.  An  institutional  Church 
is  a  poor  substitute,  in  its  offer  of  work,  of  recreation  and 
rest,  of  social  relationships,  for  the  Home.  A  socialized 
State,  with  its  offer  of  concern  for  the  maintenance  and  the 
welfare  of  the  individual,  will  never  become  a  practical  sub- 


THE   FUTURE.  920 

stitute  for  the  Home.  The  most  difficult  work  of  the  Church 
in  our  stage  of  civilization  is  not  co-operation  or  control  in  the 
State;  neither  is  it  the  finding  of  devices  or  the  offering  of 
itself  as  a  substitute  for  the  weaknesses  of  the  Home ;  but  it 
is  the  planting  and  protection  of  the  Christian  Home  as  over 
against  the  encroachments  of  sin,  society,  civilization,  com- 
mercial and  corporate  life,  and  against  false  socialistic  ideas 
of  Church  and  State. 

The  inner  mission  work  is  an  emergency,  and  is  always 
most  necessary;  but  it  is  not  to  be  compared  in  importance 
and  power  with  the  regularly  ordained  work  of  the  Church. 
A  home  is  worth  more  than  a  settlement,  more  than 
an  orphan  asylum,  more  than  a  liospital.  The  hope  of  our 
country  lies  in  the  maintenance  of  its  homes,  and  a  great 
hoi)e  for  our  Church  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  its 
membership  values  the  Home  as  a  spiritual  and  a  divine 
institution.  The  breakup  of  the  Home  under  the  influ- 
ence of  modern  commercialism,  and  the  influx  of  a  lighter 
and  more  mobile  civilization,  is  a  symptom  of  social  disin- 
tegration not  less  serious  in  its  way  than  extreme  lawlessness 
cropping  out  in  large  centers  of  population  are  symptoms  of 
political  anarchy. 

The  work  of  the  Church  is  the  work  of  testimony.  It  is 
not  mere  words.  It  is  the  faithful  application  of  the  Law  and 
the  Gospel  to  the  soul  and  the  conscience.  Its  work  is  spirit- 
ual, and  therefore  all  the  more  powerful.  It  deals  not  in 
ideas,  or  in  plans,  but  in  the  destroying  and  saving  Truth  of 
God. 

Witness  is  the  greatest  of  realities,  and  therefore  the 
greatest  of  powers.  It  knows  no  distinctions  of  earthly  posi- 
tion. It  may  involve  but  does  not  seek  martyrdom.  It  is 
objective,  and  fearlessly  separates  the  false  from  the  true.  It 
is  the  light  shining  into  the  darkness.  It  condemns  corrup- 
tion by  its  word ;  and,  in  its  own  sphere,  which  is  the  con- 
gregation, by  its  deed,  by  discipline.  Yet  it  condemns  not 
for  the  sake  of  +hc  Law,  or  of  meting  out  deserts  and  justice, 
59 


930         THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

but  for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel.  And  this  fact,  that  the  Church 
does  not  bear  the  sword,  but  only  the  truth  in  love,  holds  in 
it  a  problem  not  yet  fully  solved  by  any  ecclesiastical  polity 
on  earth. 

The  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  has 
many  lessons  to  teach  the  religious  life  of  America,  and 
its  Church  should  begin,  in  this  teaching,  in  accordance  with 
its  own  spirit,  with  itself,  and  in  its  own  congregations. 

The  first  of  these  truths  is  that  the  Church  can  save  the 
world  best  by  attempting  to  be  what  it  is  in  its  own  nature, 
rather  than  by  allowing  its  own  sphere  and  power  to  degen- 
erate, and  by  reaching  out  for  power  and  for  work  into 
spheres  set  by  God  for  other  agencies.  The  Church  should  put 
the  Home  and  the  State  upon  their  feet  by  filling  the  hearts 
of  faith  with  the  wisdom  and  invincible  power  of  God,  but 
should  not  encroach  upon  the  sphere  of  Home  and  the  State 
by  reaching  in  and  assuming  under  its  own  name,  either  the 
work  or  the  methods  of  either. 

The  Church  is  the  voice  of  God  in  Christ,  and  not  the 
voice  of  Society  or  Law.  Its  appeal  is  to  the  greatest  of  all 
fountains  of  strength,  the  conscience  and  the  heart;  but  it 
should  not  rob  the  manhood  and  automatize  the  citizenship  of 
its  members  by  directing  the  act. 

The  Church  deals  in  principles  and  not  in  measures,  and 
however  threateningly  the  floodtide  of  iniquity  rolls  up,  it 
fihould  abide  by  the  use  of  its  own  spiritual  means,  which, 
if  less  spectacular,  are  more  powerful  in  the  final  result,  and 
do  not  vitiate  and  debase  the  inner  fibre  of  the  Church  or 
State.  The  new  covenant  is  not  a  theocracy.  Apparent  great- 
ness of  need,  or  seeming  certainty  of  success,  should  not 
tempt  the  Church  to  the  use  of  methods  foreign  to  her 
nature. 

If  the  Church  would  keep  the  world  from  the  adoption  of 
the  pernicious  principle  that  success  is  the  best  justification 
of  any  project,  it  should  not  itself  act  on  the  principle  that 
the  end  justifies  the  means. 


THE   FUTURE.  931 

The  Protestant  Church  in  America  under  the  Reformed 
Principle  is  a  spectacle.  Instead  of  meeting  the  corrupt 
politician  and  dealing  with  him  singly  on  its  own  ground 
the  Churches  institute  a  union  Reform  movement  and  organ- 
ize a  campaign  to  meet  him  on  his  own  ground.  Instead  of 
applying  the  Law  of  God,  which  is  the  invincible  truth,  in  the 
fearless  power  of  faith,  in  its  own  congregation  where  it  has 
rights,  it  goes  out  to  apply  the  Law  of  the  State  at  the  ballot 
box  and  in  the  Court  where  it  has  no  right. 

The  Church,  instead  of  faithfully  applying  the  Word  and 
Sacrament  as  Christ  commanded,  periodically  confesses  itself 
a  failure  in  training  the  youth  and  the  life  of  the  land,  and 
puts  itself  under  the  direction  of  lay  evangelists  experienced 
in  business  methods  of  reaching  the  soul ;  and  gives  itself 
over  to  the  laymen's  church,  where  worship,  education,  and 
recreation,  are  combined  into  a  ^^nity,  and  where  the  soul  will 
be  saved  by  the  salvation  of  tlie  mind  and  the  body ! 

The  Church,  instead  of  establishing  the  Home  in  the  power 
of  its  own  strength  and  life  with  the  daily  presence  there  of 
the  Word  of  God,  acquiesces  without  continued  witness 
against  the  destruction  of  the  Home  by  the  modern  corpora- 
tion in  business,  and  while  the  ministry  goes  on  marrying  men 
and  women,  not  as  pastors,  but  as  officials  recognized  by  the 
State,  the  Church  cries  out  to  the  State  to  save  the  institu- 
tions of  jMatrimony  and  the  Home  by  the  passage  of  more 
stringent  laws  of  divorce! 

The  Church,  without  teaching  the  Home  that  the  primary 
duty  of  Education  lies  with  it,  and  the  secondary  but  equally 
justified  rights  of  Education  lie  with  Church  and  State"", 
passively  gives  over  all  primary  Education  to  the  State, 
fails  to  teach  the  Home  as  to  its  rights  and  duties,  and, 
falling  behind  the  secular  pedagogues  in  a  realization  that 
Education  is  a  slow  process  of  gradual  and  toilsome  growth, 
commits  its  serious  responsibilities  of  teaching  to  an  un- 
trained lay  institution,  which,  to  succeed,  must  be  largely 
social  rather  than  spiritual,  must  reduce  instruction  in  the 


930        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

Word  of  God  to  a  minimum,  and  ignore  instruction  in  the 
Catechism,  that  is  the  training  of  the  child  of  God  into  the 
habitude  of  a  truly  spiritual  life  in  the  Law  and  the  Gospel. 
What  a  field  for  the  exercise  of  the  Confessional  Principle 
of  the  Lutheran  Church !  That  Faith,  not  works ;  spirit, 
not  laws;  testimony,  not  ideas,  is  the  victory  that  over- 
eometh  the  world.  That  Faith  grows  by  the  Word  of  God, 
Law  and  Gospel,  visible  and  audible;  that  the  sphere  of  the 
Church  is  the  sphere  of  Faith,  which  sacrifices  even 
life  for  the  Truth.  That  Faith  goes  out  and  builds 
Homes  where  love  sacrifices  business  interests  to  the 
growth  of  Faith  and  Love  into  character  and  deed. 
That  Faith  and  Love  go  out  into  the  civil  and  political 
relations  of  life  and  purify  and  uplift  every  part  of  the 
world  and  society  by  the  personal  relations  they  enter  into  in 
business,  society  and  politics,  and  by  the  abstract  relations 
they  enter  into  and  imdertake  in  corporate,  representative, 
elective,  executive^  legislative  and  judicial  functions,  in 
which  the  truth  and  righteousness  of  the  testimony  in  the 
sphere  of  faith,  the  kindliness  in  the  sphere  of  love,  and 
the  energy  and  effectiveness  in  the  sphere  of  action,  combine 
to  the  complete  and  ultimate  unification  of  life  in  Christ. 
What  congregations,  what  homes,  what  institutions,  what 
business  principles,  what  a  quality  of  men,  what  citizens, 
what  schools,  what  children,  what  liberty,  what  virtue,  what 
independence,  what  justice,  what  charity,  what  a  patriotism 
the  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord  will  build, 
by  faith  alone,  without  compromise,  and  the  unity  of  those 
in  this  Principle  will  not  be  federate,  but  final :  "  One,  as 
the  Father  and  the  Son  are  One." 

THE  CONFESSIONAL,  PRINCIPLE  A  STREXGTII  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Bodies  weak  in  backbone  and  lacking  in  native  strength, 
feel  the  need  of  support,  and  throw  out  their  arms  toward 
stronger  entities.  Bodies  strong  in  their  o^vn  nature  will 
not  need  alliance  without.     The  Church  true  to  the  Confes- 


THE   FUTURE.  933 

sional  Principle  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  will  be  strong  in 
her  own  kind  of  spiritual  life.  The  reality  of  eternal  life 
is  growing  within  her.  She  will  not  need  to  ask  or  seek 
power  from  without.  It  will  not  be  a  help  to  her  to  unite 
in  fellowship  with  others  "who  insist  on  partaking  of  the 
same  dish  with  us,  and  yet  always  put  in  the  seasoning  to 
suit  tliomselvos."  " 

Our  Church  possesses  the  most  positive  and  distinct  of 
Protestant  Faiths.  She  is  not  made  \\\)  of  a  common  Christi- 
anity with  a  number  of  doctrinal  peculiarities  added  on,  but 
is  woven  of  one  fiber  and  without  seam  from  centre  to  cir- 
cumference. 

Her  life  is  sharply  limited  by  her  Confession.  She  stands 
in  clear  antagonism  toward  those  who  make  Church  govern- 
ment the  mark  of  a  pure  Church,  as  well  as  toward  those  who 
are  indifferent  to  quality  of  Faith  except  on  some  such  point 
of  method  as  "  immersion "  or  "  conversion,"  She  is  not 
an  Anglican  Church,  or  a  Xew  England  Church,  or  a  Ger- 
man Church,  or  a  Church  organized  by  some  pious  man, 
but  she  is  a  Scriptural  Church  of  an  unalterable  Confession. 
Forms,  ceremonies,  governments,  racial  heredity  and  denomi- 
national name  count  for  little.  Our  Faith  counts  for  every- 
thing. Our  Confessions  are  not  a  dead  letter,  or  antiquated 
in  parts,  but  they  are  operative  in  all  points,  and  are  charg- 
ing and  holding  up  our  modern  and  latest  life.  "We  have  no 
intention  of  setting  them  aside.  The  intellect  and  the  piety 
of  our  church  accept  them.  Among  these,  there  is  no  longing 
for  a  revision.  They  are  not  a  mill-stone  about  our  necks, 
but  a  banner  above  our  heads.^  The  colors  of  the  Lutheran 
Faith  will  not  be  struck  until  the  last  man  is  down. 

There  will  be  no  compromise  or  yielding  up  of  Faith,  to 
furnish  a  working  basis  for  union.  Yet  we  trust  that  on 
every  point  and  in  every  attitude  which  does  not  involve 
such  a  compromise  of  Faith,  our  Church  will  learn  to  show 
a  breadth  of  vision,   a   patience  under  provocation   and   a 


-  Cp.  M.   H.   Richards. 


934        THE    LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

charity  in  demeanor  which  will  be  worthy  of  Christianity 
and  of  the  Church  herself.  For  she  is  not  a  narrow  church. 
A  great  non-Lutheran  scholar  bears  the  following  testimony 
to  this  fact :  "I  am  not  able  to  locate  the  Lutheran  Church 
among  any  of  the  one-sided  developments  of  the  religious  life ; 
because  she  combines  all  the  elements  which  are  presented 
elsewhere  in  isolation  and  antagonism;  they  are  united  in 
her." 

THE  LUTHEEAN  CHURCH  A  BROAD  CHUKCH. 

The  Confessional  Church  is  a  broad  Church,  not  a  narrow 
Church.  She  does  not  suggest  the  necessity  of  anything  but 
the  real  essence,  as  the  basis  of  unity.  The  agreement  which 
is  needed  is  agreement  in  the  Word  and  the  Sacrament.  Out- 
ward matters,  such  as  government,  ecclesiastical  constitution, 
hereditary  history,  different  ceremonies  and  customs  in  the 
Church,  differences  of  language,  thought,  taste,  ritual,  or 
anything  external  or  incidental  whatever,  are  not  a  suffi- 
cient basis  for  separation.  She  is  ready  to  sacrifice  all  ex- 
cept that  which  her  Lord  teaches  and  coiwaends  her,  the 
sacrifice  of  which  would  be  unfaithfulness  to  Him.  This 
is  a  broad  basis.  It  throws  all  prejudices,  customs,  circum- 
stantialities,  and  all  earthly  ecclesiastical  things  whatso- 
ever overboard,  and  leaves  only  the  difference,  where  there 
is  a  difference,  of  conscience.  It  acknowledges  true  faith 
wherever  found,  and  though  it  be  outside  her  own  communion. 

The  Lutheran  Confession  is  not  a  live  dog,  who  snaps 
and  snarls  and  interferes  in  the  pathway  of  his  master,  to  be 
called  off,  cursed,  condemned  or  apologized  for,  when  he  leaps 
on  the  benevolent  and  progressive  Ahab  whom  we  have  in- 
vited to  walk  in  our  garden ;  nor  a  dead  lion,  whose  glory  is 
of  a  bygone  age,  whose  usefulness  is  chiefly  in  his  carcass, 
whither  honey  has  been  brought  by  golden-winged  insects 
from  lovelier  zones  of  life  and  sweetness;  and  whose  bones 
should  be  mounted  and  placed  in  an  historical  museum  at  the 
disposal  of  the  student  of  comparative  religious  archaeology. 


TTIE    FUTURE.  935 

But  our  Confession  is  the  Word  of  God  beating  in  the  heart 
of  those  who  have  lived  and  died  for  the  Truth. 

I£  the  Church  of  the  living  God  is  to  stand  on  principles 
of  pure  gold  and  not  on  toes  of  iron  and  clav,  as  sincere  and 
clear  as  the  Word  of  her  Lord,  and  as  true  and  free  from 
compromise,  as  was  He,  in  all  her  words  and  deeds;  if  it 
was  not  justifiable  for  her  to  bond  toward  Judaism  or  toward 
Gnosticism  in  the  first  century ;  nor  to  reconcile  Arianism  and 
Athanasianism  into  Semi-Arianism  in  the  Fourth  Century; 
nor  to  lean  to  Nestorianism  or  Eutychianism  in  the  Fifth 
Century;  nor  to  unite  Pelagianism  and  Augustinianism  on 
the  platform  of  Semi-Pel agianism  in  the  Fifth  Century ;  nor 
to  mingle  Romanism  and  Lutheranism  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession of  the  Sixteenth  Century;  nor  to  combine  Predesti- 
narianism  and  Arminianism  in  the  Seventeenth  Century;  nor 
to  commingle  Rationalism  and  Pietism  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century;  nor  possible  to  assimilate  a  live  Confessional  ism 
with  a  fervid  Emotionalism  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  it 
also  is  never  possible  to  coalesce  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ 
Jesus  with  the  humanism  of  Zwingli,  or  the  mediaeval  spir- 
itualism of  Calvin. 

If  Melanchthon  was  right  in  compromise,*  Lutheranism 
should  compromise  to-day  for  unity's  sake,  and  give  up  her 


^  Melanchthon's  mind  was  in  motion,  but  was  brought  to  steady  anchor  for 
a  time,  at  the  fateful  moment  of  the  Church's  Confessional  birth.  "  It  was 
a  matter  of  divine  Providence  holding  control  over  our  Confession,  that  it 
was  made  at  a  time  in  which  Melanchthon  was  just  as  far  from  the  deter- 
ministic thoughts  of  the  beginning  of  his  career,  as  he  was  from  the  syner- 
gistic ideas  of  his  later  years." — Die  Augsburgische  Konfesslon  In  ihrer 
Bedeutung  fiir  das  kirchliche  Leben  der  Gegenwart,   p.   14. 

Of  the  action  of  Providence  in  all  our  Confessions,  Mueller  says,  "We 
do  not  hesitate  to  express  the  conviction  that  divine  Providence  has  been 
active  in  the  composition  of  the  Confessions,  so  that  they  have  come  into 
being,  with  prayer  to  God  Almighty  to  his  honor  and  praise,  through  the 
especial  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Book  of  Concord,  p.  9)  (Compare  Walch's 
Introduction  to  the  religious  Controversies  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  Part  IJ. 
p.   141ff.)"     Mueller's   Introduction,   p.    27-28. 

That  Melanchthon  was  not  the  representative  of  an  ideal  Lutheranism  is 
proven  by  his  words  to  Campeggius  : 

"  We  hold  no  doctrine  different  from  the  Roman  Church.  .  .  .  For  no 
other  reason  do  we  bear  much  odium  in  Germany  than  because  we  with  the 
greatest  constancy  defend  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church.  Such  fidelity 
to  Christ  and  to  the  Roman  Church  we  will,  please  God,  show  to  the  last 
breath." — C.  B.  II.   168  sq. 


936        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSION'S. 

being  for  a  common  synergistic  Protestantism;  but  if  Me- 
lanchthon  was  wrong  in  compromise,  Liitheranism  should  to- 
day embrace  the  Lutheranism  that  is  real  and  hearty,  that 
accepts  not  only  the  foundation  but  the  roof-tree  of  her  con- 
fessional structure.  She  should  clothe  herself  in  her  own 
garments,  not  put  together  in  theological  patchwork,  but 
woven  throuehont  without  seam. 


THE    CONCLITSION. 

The  reader  has  come  with  us  a  long  way.  Beginning  with 
the  Xew  Testament,  we  have  traced  the  Confessional  Princi- 
ple of  Christianity  through  the  winding  course  of  history. 
Beginning  with  the  Reformation,  we  have  traced  the  Confes- 
sional Principle  of  the  Conservative  Evangelical  Faith  from 
its  first  fountain-head  to  its  last  testimony  in  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  and  have  attempted  to  make  such  applications 
as  might  seem  serviceable  to  present  conditions. 

We  have  em])hasized  the  fact  tliat  the  Word  of  God  is  the 
only  rule  of  Faith  and  life,  by  which  our  reason  and  all  the 
regulative  conceptions  of  our  age,  its  speculative  thoughts 
and  ideas,  its  customs,  progress,  and  standards,  its  teach- 
ings, traditions  and  usages,  its  suggestions,  methods  and 
plans,  are  being  tested.  We  have  emphasized  an  open  and 
unambiguous  Confession  of  God's  complete  Word,  and  of 
Christ  in  it,  as  the  Church's  first  duty,  her  loftiest  privilege, 
her  chief  joy,  and  the  leading  source  of  her  strength. 

We  have  declared  our  assurance  that  the  Church  is  strong 
as  she  is  strong  w^ithin,  strong  in  conviction  and  Confession 
of  the  Principle  and  the  Person  on  which  she  was  founded ; 
and  that  she  will  be  preserved  and  saved  by  her  Faith  (sola), 
whose  reality  comes  to  manifestation  in  Confession. 

We  have  urged,  as  we  believe,  with  Christ,  Avith  Paul,  with 
Luther,  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  Formula 
if  Concord,  that  the  chief  practical  thing  in  Christianity  is 


THE   FUTURE.  937 

not  organization,  or  union,  or  tradition,  or  usages,  but  testi- 
mony. Fidelity  in  the  Confessional  Principle  is  what  estab- 
lishes and  maintains  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  adds  tKe 
increase  that  is  permanent. 

What  has  been  presented  up  to  this  point  is,  it  is  hoped, 
historical  in  method  and  result.  But  the  Principle  that 
lies  beneath  the  presentation,  if  it  be  of  value,  is  above  his- 
tory. It  is  the  Truth.  We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  tlie  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  forever.  Time  can  never  cause  it  to  decay,  and  pro- 
gress can  never  bring  it  to  change.  As  a  fact  in  history, 
and  as  a  Body  of  Principles,  it  is  complete  in  the  past,  and 
was  revealed  in  the  fulness  of  time.  In  its  application  to 
the  human  race,  and  in  its  unfolding  to  ultimate  triumph,  it 
belongs  to  the  future. 

It  has  been  obliged  to  meet  and  has  been  able  to  vanquish 
the  errors  and  half-truths  of  every  age,  which  have  always 
and  from  the  very  beginning  in  the  Xew  Testament  arrayed 
themselves  against  it. 

The  Gospel  has  lived,  and  been  active,  and  brought  con- 
viction to  the  mind,  and  salvation  to  the  soul,  by  the  power 
in  its  faithful  Witness.  This  witness  has  been  of  the  single 
congregation,  through  the  ministration  of  the  Word  and 
Sacraments,  and  through  the  lives  of  its  members;  it  has 
also  been  of  the  whole  Church  through  the  precious  declar- 
ations of  faith  and  solemn  testimony  to  the  truth  uttered 
by  the  believing  hearts  faithful  in  time  of  severe  trial  and 
great   peril. 

The  first  and  simplest  summary  of  the  faith,  testifying 
to  the  pure  Gospel,  is  the  Apostles'  Cre^d,  which,  with  the 
ISTicene  Creed  and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  are  the  "  brief, 
plain  Confessions  "  of  the  Church  to  the  facts  of  the  Gospel, 
which  we  also  believe  and  teach,  and  confess  as  binding  upon 
us,  and  reject  all  principles  and  teachings  that  are  contrary 
to  these  Confessions. 

The   Witness   of   these   confessions,    as   the   substance   of 


938         THE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Scripture,  saved  the  Church  from  heathenism ;  but  when  the 
Church  itself  became  overladen  with  heathen  and  human 
elements,  the  Witness  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the 
face  of  Rome,  saved  the  Gospel.  We  believe,  teach  and 
confess  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  as  they  are  found  in  this 
Witness  at  Augsburg,  together  with  its  Aj^ology,  and  the 
articles  composed  at  Schmalkald,  and  with  the  two  outlines 
of  the  Gospel  composed  by  Luther,  called  the  Small  and 
Large  Catechisms,  which  constitute  the  Bible  of  the  laity. 

When,  after  the  recovery  of  the  Evangelical  principle  at 
Augsburg,  tlie  new  standpoint  had  developed  in  its  weak- 
ness and  strength,  and  the  errors  of  Protestantism  had  had 
time  to  spring  up  during  the  Eeformation  age  as  the  errors 
of  Romanism  sprang  up  in  the  Middle  Age ;  there  came  the 
further  and  final  witness  to  the  truth,  which  connected  the 
Apostolic  and  Catholic  witness  of  old  to  the  evangelical 
witness  of  Protestantism,  and  which  at  the  same  time  dis- 
associated the  evil  developments  of  the  spirit  of  freedom 
from  those  that  are  truly  evangelical.  The  confessional  sub- 
stance of  the  final  confession  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  first 
confession  of  the  Church. 

From  our  inmost  hearts,  therefore,  we  once  again  confess 
the  ancient  creeds,  the  Christian  Augsburg  Confession  so 
thoroughly  grounded  in  God's  Word,  and  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  Gospel  truth,  and  as 
the  essence  of  the  faith,  doctrine  and  confession  of  us  all, 
for  which  we  will  answer,  at  the  last  day,  before  the  just 
Judge,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Confession  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  God's  Word  as- 
similated and  pulsating  in  the  Church  and  condensed  into 
public  standards,  which  constitute  the  common  principles 
of  its  faith,  and  the  common  framework  of  its  doctrine,  which 
is  the  common  mark  of  our  membership  and  the  common 
flag  of  our  loyalty,  is  the  Christian's  greatest  and  most  pre- 
cious privilege. 

Such  Confession  does  not  constrict  individual  investigation, 
bind  individual  consciences  and  suppress  individual  liberty, 


THE   FUTURE.  939 

but  gives  each  of  these  human  prerogatives  a  worthy  ideal 
and  goal.  Such  Confession  draws  the  line  between  truth 
and  error,  in  our  day,  just  as  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles 
drew  the  line  in  their  day. 

This  mighty  Witness  of  the  Christian  Church  to  the 
fundamental  facts  that  control  its  origin  and  purpose,  is 
not  put  together  by  agreement  of  its  members,  and  is  not 
of  the  essence  of  contract,  but  is  the  Church's  continuous 
and  connected  testimony  to  the  substantial  unities  of  salva- 
tion and  everlasting  life  in  Christ. 

These  Confessions  have  the  right  to  claim  cheerful  and 
hearty  loyalty  from  those  who  profess  to  teach  their  prin- 
ciples, and  who  accept  office  on  their  foundations. 

They  connect  us  directly  with  the  Apostolic  Witness  in 
Scripture  and  with  that  of  the  Church  in  all  ages.  They 
point  the  pathway  to  the  future,  as  they  ha^e  been  the  high- 
way of  safety  in  the  past,  amid  the  winds  and  waves  of  doc- 
trine and  the  shifting  changes  of  philosophic  thought.  This 
Witness  of  the  Evangelical  Church  is  found  most  fully  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord. 

"Here  the  Church,  in  the  maturity  of  its  powers,  examines 
and  judges  itself.  It  subjects  its  conceptions  of  the  faith  to 
rigid  analysis  and  discriminating  criticism,  and  frames  and 
fixes  the  terminology  of  theological  definitions,  which  under 
its  decisions  lose  the  ambiguity  that  at  many  points  had 
caused  confusion  and  controversy.  In  it,  the  positive  and 
negative  elements  are  most  carefully  balanced.  The  pre- 
dominant characteristics  of  the  Formula  are  its  scientific 
exactness  and  the  judicial  poise  with  wliich  it  keeps  the 
golden  mean  between  the  extremes  on  both  sides,  which  it 
states  at  the  beginning  of  the  discussion  of  every  topic." 

This  Confessional  Witness  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  the 
Faith  historically  established  in  the  early  Swedish,  Dutch 
and  German  immigration  to  America.  It  was  the  Confes- 
sion of  Campanius,  Falckner,  Kocherthal  and  Berkemeier, 


•  Jacobs,  Summary  of  Christian  Faith,  p.  452. 


940         TEE    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

Stoever,  Bolzius,  and  Muhlenberg.  It  is  the  Confession 
which  alone  will  give  to  the  Lutheran  Church  the  vitality 
of  its  own  nature,  and  the  strength  that  need  not  be  drawn 
from  foreign  sources.  The  greatest  dangers  through  which 
the  Lutheran  Church  has  passed  in  America  are  those  con- 
nected with  the  undervaluation  and  abatement  of  this  Princi- 
ple. AYe  do  not  believe,  with  the  broad-visioned  and  frater- 
nally-minded founder  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  that  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America  will  ultimately  be  absorbed 
in  the  Reformed  Principle ;  but  it  is  our  belief  that  what 
has  prevented  this  from  being  more  fully  the  case  up  to  the 
present,  despite  the  enormous  defections  in  every  generation, 
has  been  the  Confessional  Principle  of  the  Unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  the  Book  of  Concord;  and  that  this 
Principle  is  the  bulwark  of  the  Church  for  the  future. 

We  regard  the  Lutheran  name,  the  Lutheran  history,  the 
Lutheran  blood  and  Lutheran  customs  as  a  weak  defence 
against  the  tides  of  Puritan,  Eeformed,  and  Humanitarian 
religion  whose  waves  are  moving  tow^ard  conquest,  as  they 
ever  have  been  in  this  American  land.  The  one  strength,  the 
sling  of  David,  which  the  Lutheran  Church  possesses,  is  her 
Faith,  her  conviction,  her  testimony. 

Our  Confessions  are  not  our  idols.  Historically,  they  are 
not  any  more  to  us  than  the  name,  the  land,  the  people  from 
which  they  sprang.  But  their  Principle  is  the  very  Word 
of  God.  While  they  are  not  to  be  worshipped  any  more  than 
the  flag  of  our  country  is  to  be  worshipped,  they  are  to  be 
treasured  and  valued,  as  the  flag  is,  for  what  of  Trutli  and 
power  and  salvation  they  represent:  not  merely  Truth  and 
power  potent  in  a  historical  past,  but  as  a  dynamic  factor 
in  the  present  and  as  a  tried  and  sure  standard  for  the  future. 

Shall  we  Lutherans  in  this  American  World  of  the  Twenti- 
eth Century,  where  we  are  free  to  work  out  the  spirit  of  the 
Church  of  the  pure  Word  and  Sacraments,  repeat  the  internal 
strife  and  the  mistakes  of  the  Lutherans  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century?     Shall  we  use  up  our  strength  in  placating  and 


THE   FUTURE.  941 

compromising  with  a  non-Lutheran  Christianity  and  be  torn 
asunder  into  insignificant  pieces,  rather  than  live  out  our  own 
principles  and  become  their  most  perfect  exemi)liiication  ? 

Shall  we  allow  the  old  and  time-worn  standards  to  lie 
unknown,  moth-eaten  and  covered  over  with  dust;  or,  when 
they  are  brought  forth,  instead  of  unfurling  them  at  the 
head  of  our  columns,  shall  we  give  them  a  quasi-recog- 
nition — nay,  stand  by  and  see  our  own  children  disown 
them,  spit  upon  them,  and    trample  them  in  the  dust? 

Shall  this  be  done !  Shall  we  permit  this  to  be  done !  in 
the  name  of  Christian  unity !  and  by  a  latitudinarianism  that 
is  our  own  heritage,  which  rises  ever  anew  from  the  embers 
of  the  past  to  find  such  veiled  support  and  strength  in  the 
citadel  of  Zion  that  Confessionalism  is  told  to  whisper  low  in 
Jerusalem  lest  she  be  heard  on  the  streets  of  Gath. 

With  the  Word  of  God  and  a  continuous  line  of  testimony 
behind  us,  let  us  lift  up  our  great  banner  and  press  forward 
into  the  future.  What  a  loss  to  the  Christian  Church  to  go 
back  to  Christ  and  reject  the  intervening  experience  mediated 
by  Providence  through  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  contact  of  the 
Word  with  many  generations.  WTiat  a  loss  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  to  go  back  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  ignore  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  What  an  unhistorical  sense  to  select 
a  single  point,  though  it  be  our  greatest,  and  allow  the  change 
of  every  wind  and  tide  to  move  and  make  sport  of  our  faith 
since  then.  Those  who  accept  the  prophets  and  ignore  the 
patriarchs  of  the  Old  Testament  as  mythical;  those  who 
accept  the  Gospels  and  ignore  the  Epistles  as  private  com- 
ments on  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  do  scant  justice  to  the 
testimony  of  God's  Word. 

The  Confessional  question  of  our  Church  was  the  Con- 
fessional question  of  the  early  Christian  Church:  Are  we 
to  be  limited  to  one  Creed,  viz.,  the  Apostolic,  and  to  one 
Confession,  viz.,  the  Augsburg  Confession;  or  Shall  we  ac- 
cept the  fnrther  Creeds  that  fulfil  and  summarize  the  orig- 
inal principle  in  further  development  ?  Is  the  Confessional 
63 


942        THE   LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS. 

principle  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  as  Lutheranism  compre- 
hends it,  one  continuous  and  connecting  line  of  development 
from  the  Scripture  to  the  present  day ;  or  is  it  a  certain  spot 
in  that  line  ? 

Is  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  to  accept  her  own  com- 
plete historical  foundation,  and  to  come  to  her  own  on  that 
basis,  or  is  she  to  surrender  portions  of  that  basis  in  the  hope 
of  coming  to  Protestantism's  own,  on  a  not  as  yet  fully 
determinate  basis  ?  The  Word  of  God  itself  should  decide. 
The  whole  Reformation  period  was  a  providential  era,  in 
which  the  faith  first  brought  to  the  surface  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession  was  wrought  out  through  Providence  in  the 
history  and  experience  of  the  Church,  and  reached  complete 
expression  in  the  Book  of  Concord. 

The  Evangelical  principle  will  never  die.  The  Confession 
of  the  Book  of  Concord  must  not,  shall  not  be  disowned  in 
America  by  the  children  of  the  fathers  in  whose  faith  and 
churches  it  was  maintained.  It  is  useless  to  expect  continued 
renewals  of  immigration  from  the  Fatherland  or  other  foreign 
shores.  These  sources  of  our  strength  are  well-nigh  spent, 
and  if  the  Church  shall  not  have  established  itself  in  her  own 
Evangelical  Faith  of  the  living  Gospel,  in  the  life  and  lan- 
guage and  blood  of  the  generations  that  are  to  come,  her 
children  will  walk,  as  did  Israel  of  old,  in  the  ways  of  sur- 
rounding nations.  Her  priests  will  sit  at  her  altars  desolate, 
and  her  prophets  will  mourn  and  weep  in  vain. 

Yet  even  then,  our  eye  shall  not  be  filled  with  sorrow. 
For  we  are  sure  that  the  Word  of  the  Lord  will  prevail.  We 
look  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations.  We  look  unto 
Jesus,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith.  We  hold  fast 
the  Confession  of  our  faith  without  wavering,  for  we  are  not 
come  in  it  unto  an  earthly  Zion,  but  we  are  come  to  the  Heav- 
enly Jerusalem  and  unto  the  city  of  the  living  God,  and  to 
His  Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  Whom  we  trusted,  after 
we  heard  His  Word  of  Truth,  the  Gospel  of  our  Salvation. 


THE   FUTURE.  943 

We  are  conie  to  the  strength  and  glory  of  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  with  its  soaring  and  radiant  pinnacles  of  divine 
l)roniise,  and  its  silent  sweeps  of  nieasnreless  mysterv, 
bridged,  from  crystal  sphere  and  lofty  cloud  beyond,  to 
bruised  heart  and  lowly  earth  beneath,  only  by  the  unerring 
footprint  of  the  Son  of  ^[an,  Who  shall  appear  in  His  glory, 
and  purge  away  the  darkness  of  doubt,  the  vagueness  of 
error,  and  the  blackness  of  heresy,  and  Who  shall,  in  the 
truth  of  Tlis  own  Person,  illumine  and  order  and  animatQ 
the  city  of  the  living  God,  and  its  united  society.  We  are 
come  to  the  King  and  the  Kingdom  of  the  Truth,  the  pure 
realm  in  which  God's  power  prevails  in  the  inward  parts,  and 
the  bright  Word,  spiritually  discerned,  shines  as  the  sun, 
credible  in  its  own  clearness,  to  the  believing  heart;  and 
brings  the  mind  to  utterance,  for  very  joy  at  the  strength  of 
the  King  in  His  beauty,  Who  is  the  head  of  the  Church;  and 
of  and  through  Whom  only,  of  all  truths  in  Heaven  and  earth, 
by  the  certainty  of  faith,  our  Confession  is  sure. 

"Die  Losung  unsreii  Kikciie  ix  diesem  Kampfe  kann  nub 
sein:     Halte  was  pu  iiast,  auf  dass  dir 

^lEMATSTD  DEINE  KkONE  R  All  BE,  T^ISrSRE 

Krone  ist  unser  Bekenntniss." 


INDEX 


NOTE — For  names  of  authors  and  titles  of  icorks  see  the  Bibliography 
in  Table   of   Contents. 


ABSOLUTION.  44. 

ABSOLUTION.     PRIVATE,      .n     Aug. 

Conf..   262. 
ABUSES,    in    Aug.     Conf.,     173,     254. 
265-282. 
in  Formula  of  Concord,   819. 
ACRELIUS,    867. 
"ADMONITION     TO     CLERGY."     See 

Luther. 
^PINUS.    657. 

AGRICOLA.    JOHN.    171.    307f.    329ff. 
411f,     441.     453,     458.     481,     581, 
588,    598,    763. 
AGREEMENT.     See  Contract,  Symbol. 
defined,   55,  66ff. 
and   contract,    68. 
classified,    55. 
various    kinds   of,    66. 
the  true.  61. 
pre-existent,   56f. 
and   Christian    unities,   58. 
ALBA,    DUKE,    536f.    540. 
ALBERTUS    MAGNUS.    765. 
ALEXANDER  OF  HALES.  157. 
ALLEGIANCE.    OATH   OF.   35. 
ALLCEOSIS.   794ff. 
ALTENBURG.    171.   646,    649. 
ALTAR-FELLOWSHIP.      Bee    Fellow- 
ship. 
AMBROSE,    269,    776.    789.    813. 
AMERICA,   Lutheranism  in,  855. 
Historical  Lutheranism  in,   859. 
First     English      Lutheran     Services 

in.    860. 
Future  of  Lutheran  Church  in.  940. 
Confession   of   the   Book   of  Concord 
in,   942. 
AMERICAN     PROTESTANTISM     and 
the    Bible,    139. 
and    Book   of   Concord.    874-890. 
and  the  Church.  139. 
and  Lutheranism.    138.   141ff.   858. 
AMMON,   G.   F..    685. 
AMSDORF.    NICHOLAS.    596.    598. 
AMSTERDAM,     Constitution    of    Con- 
gregation  at,    862.      Introduction. 
ANABAPTISTS.     51.     173,     178,     181, 
231.    256.    260,    262,    263f,    348, 
416.    675. 
Carlyle  on  Luther's  conduct  toward. 
913. 
ANARCHY.    21. 

ANDREAE.    JACOB,    534.    597.    638f. 
648ff,    669.    674,   715,    721ff,   742, 
832 
ANHALT,    657.    673.    724. 
ANHALT,  PRINCE  OF.  185,  211.  239. 
293,     358,     396.     403,     406,     422. 
426.    465. 
ANSBACH.  183.  373,  671. 
ANSBACH  MANUSCRIPT.     See  Augs- 
burg Conf. 

(■9-15) 


ANSELM,  757,  774. 
APOLLINARIS,    107,    775. 
APOLOGY  TO  AUGS.  CONF.,  purpose 
of,  63,  74. 
Melanchton's    relation    to.    74,    2&r, 
511,    515,    519,    524f.    542f,    .566. 
570.    622.    627.    634. 
and  Augsburg  Conf.,  63.  339f,   357, 

523,    525.    531.    696.    697f,    730. 
and  Naumburg  Diet.  556f. 
and  Charles  V.  519,  570f. 
and   Rome,   710. 
and  Lutheranism,  570f. 
and    the    Controversialists,    644ff. 
as    a    Confession,    Introduction. 
APOSTLES'  CREED.      See  Creed. 
AQUILA,    KASPAR,    171. 
AQUINAS,  THOMAS,   625,   777. 
ARjISTOTLE,   618f.   765,   849. 
ARMINIANISM,    747,   935. 
ARNDT,   J.,   135. 

ATHANASIAN    CREED.      See    Creed. 
ATHANASIUS.   788n. 
AUGSBURG.    2.     126.    672.    701,    704, 
709,   718.   782. 
Diets    at,     119,     169fE,     194ff,     241, 
285f,     291,      302f,      318ft.     324ft, 
414ff,    523,    539.    543,    570.    633. 
635.   712f.  723,   Introduction. 
"  Schrift    Aus."      See    Melanchthon. 
peace   of,    552.    559,    591,    606,    637, 
644. 
AUGSBURG  INTERIM,   591,   819n. 
AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.      See    In- 
troduction, 
authorship  of,    117ff.   284.   431ff. 
and  Providence,   2on.   57,   117,    121, 

283-435.   521. 
true    historical    estimate    of,    428ff, 

521. 
and  CEcumenical  Creeds,  121f,   776. 
and   Protestantism,    121.    122,    131. 
Confessional    Principle    in.    117-143. 
presentation  of.   190.   342.   425. 
when    final    completion    of    was    be- 
gun.  205ff,  213. 
Spalatin's   text   of,    207.    224,    244ff, 

555.    561.    568. 
Ansbach    manuscript    of,    194,    207, 

244f. 
gradual   formation  of,   223ff,   284. 
Schornbaum's    discovery    of    manu- 
script of,   225. 
and    landgrave   of   Hesse,    183.    211, 
235ff,    373,    391f,    419.    422,    434f. 
and      Nuremberg      delegates.       See 

Nurembera  Delegates. 
text  of.    242ff.    522-569,   727,   728. 
on  abuses,  254,  265. 
on  private  absolution,   262. 
on   baptism.    262. 
on  bishops.   276ff. 
on  Christology.  260. 
on  Canons,  267f,  272ft. 


946 


INDEX. 


AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  and  Chan- 
cellor Bruck,  120,  127,  187,  190, 
210,  224,  243,  335,  357,  368, 
418,    434f,    464,    565. 

Confessional   content  of,   123f. 

objective   universality   in,   124f. 

and  liberty  of  conscience,  128. 

and  Brentz,   126. 

and   Spalatin,   126. 

and  Jonas,  126,  170f,  187f.  243, 
320ff,    379,    418. 

oldest   known    form    of,    177ff,    221- 
250,   251-282,   380. 
•  and  Eck,  173f,  179,  343f,  348.  352f, 
433f,    530,     535,     540,     543,     565, 
583. 

when  completed,  189. 

origin   of,    168-191. 

and  evangelical  estates,  118,  182ff, 
234,  241ff,  373ff,  391,  398,  416f, 
434.    464f,   552ff,   565. 

new  light  on,   285. 

on  faith,  260f. 

on  good  works.  261. 

on  gospel,   127f. 

on  God,   259. 

on  Holy  Ghost,  260. 

on  Holy  Days,  257,  263,   281. 

on   justification,    127,    260. 

a    growth,    284. 

a   Church   Confession,    339. 

Confessional  limitation  of,  122f, 
339f,  693. 

greatness   of,    124. 

historical  occasion  of,   124. 

Luther's  opinion  of,  124n,  174,  250, 
356,   358f,   466ff. 

and  Rome,  122,  123f,  132f,  176, 
480,  710,   747. 

general  confessional  characteristics 
of.    124ff. 

spirit  of  Catholic  continuity  in, 
125,   127. 

expression  of  faith  of  entire  Lu- 
theran  Church,    126. 

and  per.sonal  salvation  by  faith, 
127f. 

and   the   gospel.    127f. 

first  so-called  Confession,  25. 

chief  purpose  of,   56,    60,    63,   74. 

distinctive     features    of,     122. 

Confessional    advance    in,    122. 

Melanchthon's  introduction  to.  See 
Mclanchthon. 

and    the    Church,    125,    261,    276ff. 

and  Lutheran  Church,  11,  84,  133, 
427f.    822f. 

and   Reformed   Churches,   134. 

and  Church  and  State,  129f,  276ff. 

a  symbol  of  Protestantism,   131. 

simplicity   of    its    teaching,    132. 

political  influence  of,  134. 

as  a  basis  for  union  of  Protestant- 
ism. 135f. 

and  Torgau  Articles.  See  Torgau 
Articles. 

signing  of,  422f. 

real  power  in  content.   427. 

reason   for  influence  of,  515. 

editions  of,    522-569. 

the  editio  princeps,  523f,  531,  540, 
555f,    562f,    565ft.    Introduction. 

Variata.  135f,  488,  504,  525ff,  577, 
582,   603,   606,   623,   624. 

German  original  of,  535,  537,  540, 
560ff. 

Latin   original   of,    536f,   540,   565. 


and     Naumburg     Diet,     531,    553ff, 

563,   604. 
and   communicatio   idiomatum,   813. 
and   the  Controversialists,   644ff. 
not  sufficient,   693ff,   708. 
and   Scripture,    749f. 
and    Luther.      See   Luther. 
and     Melan'chthon.     See     Melanch- 

thon. 
and      Elector      John.     See     Elector 

John. 
and   Charles   V.     See    Charles   V. 

and    Formula    of    Concord. 
usage    of    the    phrase    in    the    early 

American    church,    866. 
and   problems  of  the  day,   924. 
AUGSBURG      CONFESSION      UNAL- 
TERED,  in  America.   861ff. 
in    Amsterdam    and    St.    Mary's    of 

Savoy    Constitutions,    862. 
basis    of    the    Constitution    of    our 

American    Constitutions,    862. 
Sweden    and    the,    862. 
settlements    on    the    Delaware    and 

the,    863. 
New   Netherlands    and   the,    863. 
historical   significance  of,   865,   866, 

884. 
German    Palatine    Immigration    and 

the,    865. 
John    Casper   Stcever   and   the,    861. 

865,  867. 
Muhlenberg    and    the.    869. 
Brunnholtz  and  the.  869. 
Ministerium    of    Pennsylvania    and 

the,    870-872. 
exanimo    subscription    to,    888-890. 
unalterable.   Introduction. 
Augsburg    Confession    not    intended 

to     be     an     adequate     and     final 

standard.    890. 
AUGUSTINE,  264.  271.   275,  626.  755, 

774,    776.    788f.    791,    896. 
AUSTRIA.    580,    677. 
AUTHORITY  and  democracy,  40. 
four  sources  of,  874. 
reason  and,  875. 
the  Church  and,   875. 
Scripture    and,    876. 
Lutheran  Confessionalism  and,  875, 

876. 
Confessional   Principle  and  external 

authority,    878. 


B 


"BACK  TO   CHRIST,"   27. 

BACON,     LORD.     849. 

BADEN,    654,    671. 

BADEN,    MARGRAVE   CHARLES   OF, 

557,  654. 
BAIER,   845. 
BAIREUTH.    671. 
BAPTISM,   original   formula   of,    97f. 

in  Augs.  Conf.,  262. 

See    also    Sacraments   and    Luther's 
Catechism. 
BARBY,     672. 

BARCELONA.    PEACE    OF.    304,    341. 
BASEL,    COUNCIL   OF,    258. 
BASIL.    ST..    813. 
BAUMGARTEN,    S.    J.,    851. 
BAUMGARTNER.    J..    177.    228,    499f, 

502,    516    (Biog.). 
BAUR,    F.    C,    142,    853. 
BAVARIA.    532,    580.    705. 

Duke   William   of,    358,    361. 


INDEX. 


947 


BENTHEIM,   677. 
BERG,    677. 
BERGEN,    658f,    830. 
BERGEN   BOOK,   640,   658ff. 

See  Book  of  Concord. 
BERKEMEIER,    939. 
BERLIN,    669. 
BERN,    HANS,    345. 
BERNARD,      ST.,      765. 
BEYER,    CHR.,    190,    425. 
BEZA,    640,    675,    840. 
BIBERACH,    672. 
BIBLE.     See   Scripture,   Word. 
not   a    Creed,    28ff. 
as  the  rule  of  faith,  32. 
and   faith,   55. 
and   Confession,   55. 
place    in    American    Protestantism, 

139. 
the   holy   as   a  source  of   authority, 
876. 
BIEL.      Introduction. 
BIGOTRY,    878,    911. 

Cp.    "  Tolerance." 
BINDSEIL,    223,    passim. 
BISHOPS,    in    Aug.    Conf..    2761f. 

in  Formula  of  Concord,  820. 
BLACKSTONE,      definition      of      con- 
tract,   68. 
BOHEMIA,    258.    361,    580,   677. 
BOHEMIAN    BRETHREN,    792. 
BOHME,     JACOB.     765. 
BOLOGNA,   168,   287,   304,   311ff,  341. 
BOLZIUS,    940. 
BONAVENTURA,    765. 
BOOK  OF  CONCORD,  preface  to,  832. 
testimony    of    preface    to    Augsburg 
Confession,      884-886,      aud      Eigh- 
teenth  Century.    726. 
title   of.    74,    835"f. 
and    Lutheranism,    822,    824. 
Lutheran   Confessions   in.    834f. 
origin   and  publication  of,   832. 
editions  of,   836ff.     V.  also  Bihlior/- 

raphy.  XXXVI. 
and      historical      Lutheranism      in 

America,    859.    861. 
and    the     Formula,     in     Amsterdam 
and    St.    Mary's    of    Savoy    Consti- 
tution,  862. 
and  Sweden,   862,  864      V.  also  In- 
troduction. 
and    Palatine    Immigration,    865. 
and   phrase   "Augsburg  Confession," 

866. 
and   Muhlenberg,    868. 
and    Brunnholtz.    869. 
and    Mini.siterium    of    Penna.,    870, 

871.     872. 
component  parts  of,  11. 
name  and  title,   72,   74. 
use   of   word    "  symbol,"    73,    158. 
See  Formula  of  Concord,  use  of  In 

Theological    Seminaries.   76. 
text     of    Augsburg     Confession     In, 
535ff,    560ff,     719,    837.       V.    also 
Introduction . 
and   Naumburg   Diet,    559. 
and    the    Corpus    Doctrinae,    646. 
assent  to.   664iT. 
discussed    more    than    Augs.    Conf., 

667. 
bulk  of.   697f. 
and    American    Protestantism,    874- 

890,   939,   940. 
and    future   of  Lutheran   Church   In 

America.  923. 
need  of.     See  chap.   25. 


origin   of.     See   chaps.    25,    26. 
introduction    signing    and    adoption 

of.      See   chap.    'J.1  . 
the    objections    offered    against    it. 
See  chap.    28. 

BOPFINGEN,   672. 

BRANDENBURG,  209,  671,  724. 

BRANDENBURG,  ELECTOR  JOA- 
CHIM OF,  358,  361,  462.  474, 
489f,  535,  563,  837. 

BRANDENBURG  MARGRAVE 

GEORGE  OF,  182ff,  188f,  208, 
211,  236f,  293,  369,  373f,  391f. 
396ff,  403,  406,  410,  422,  465, 
474,   486f,   493,   500,   513. 

BRAUNSCHWEIG,    639,    647. 

BREMEN,     599,    673,     724. 

BRENTZ,  JOHN,  126,  237,  307,  441, 
453,  457,  487,  492ff,  507,  551. 
554,  577.  588,  599.  605,  638,  645, 
648.    719,    723,   833. 

BRESLAU,   580. 

BRIEG,   676. 

BRIEGER,     defense    of    Melanchthon, 
193ff. 
date   of   beginning   of   final   comple- 
tion of  Confession,    205ff. 
reply  to,   195ff,   205ff.   213f. 
investigations    of,    218,    223f,    335. 

BROTHERHOOD,    Preface. 

BRuCK.  CHANCELLOR.  120,  127. 
169f,  176,  183,  187,  190,  196, 
202.  204,  210,  214,  216fr,  224, 
236,  243,  320,  328,  335,  357, 
359,  362,  368,  371f,  374,  379, 
404.  417f,  424,  426,  434,  443, 
457,  464,  488ff,  493,  500,  511, 
514,  518f,  546f,  554,  565,  581, 
584,    633,    668. 

BRUNNHOLTZ  and  the  Symbolical 
Books,   869,   870. 

BRUNSWICK,    651,    653,    671ff,    715, 
723f. 
Duke  of,  198f,  392,  407,  462. 
Duke    Julius    of,     651,     653,     655f, 
673f.    723f. 

BRUSSELS,    536f,    540,    565. 

BUCER,  MARTIN,  481,  494,  574ff, 
577,  621f,  624.  628.  632,  768, 
782,    793f.    796.    810.    900. 

BUCHHOLZER,    A.,    327. 

BUDDEUS,     851. 

BUGENHAGEN.      JOHN      (POMERA- 
NUS),    170,    321,   546f,   577,    597, 
719,    793. 
BULLINGER,  723. 
BURGER,   VON.   89,    92. 
BUTLER,   NICHOLAS  MURRAY,  685. 


CAJETAN,   197,   350f. 
CALIXTUS,    840.    850. 

and  the  Confessions,   149n,    150. 
CALOVIUS.    845f. 

CALVIN,  105n,  134n,  142,  494,  534, 
575,  588.  598f,  602,  606n,  622, 
625.  632.  643.  647.  656.  681 
767ff,  782,  796,  809f,  827,  841, 
848n.  935. 
CALVINISM  AND  ROMANISM.  141f. 
Crypto-,    534.    597,    599.    605f,    640, 

653,    668,    676,    693.    8.-^9. 
rise  of,   643. 

and  Lutheranism.  77?.  82-1 
CALVTNISTS,     530.     P31f.     6^0      fiiq 
663,  675.  681,  716    723.  725    728i 


948 


INDEX. 


CALVINISTS.       Calvinistic      attitude 
to    the    State,    896. 
crypto,    900. 
CAMERARIUS,   196f,    201,   219f,    337, 
391,    413,    421f,    479,    49.5f,    577, 
579,   597,   627n. 
CAMPANIUS,    863,    939. 
CAMPEGGI.     CARDINAL,     176,     186, 
192ft-201,    206.     215ff,    326,    361, 
394f,    399,    408,    417,    424,    448, 
471f,  503f,  014. 
CANON,    church    after   completion    of, 
32. 
after  death   of  apostles,   32. 
"  of  the  Truth,"   lOlf. 
CANONS,   THE,   in  Augs.  Conf.,   267f, 

272ff. 
CARLSTADT.    173,    614,    675,    792. 
CARLYLE,  THOMAS,  on  Luther,  859. 

on  tolerance  912. 
CARPZOV,    lOn,    16n,    156,    728. 
CASSEL,    577,    578n.    581. 
CASTELL,   672. 

CATECHISM,     Luther's,     24,    56,     63, 
75f,  81,  lllff,  533,  645,  649,  675, 
678,    684,    695f,    697f,    730,    778f. 
781,     797,    835.     837,     863ff-872, 
932. 
HeideliDerg,    532,   558,    640,    646. 
Wittenberg.  714. 
CELLARIUS,    359. 

CENTRIFITGAL  AND  CENTRIPETAL 
FORCES,  the  confessional  prin- 
ciple preserving  the  balance,  877, 
878. 
CENTURY,  SIXTEENTH,  and  Con- 
fession. 1. 
and  Luther,  28. 

Melanchthonianism   in,   624,   e35f. 
the    Lutheran    Confession    in,    637, 

688f. 
Lutheranism   in.    700ff. 
CENTURY,    SEVENTEENTH,    Confes- 
sion  in,    1,    149. 
Melanchthon     and    Lutheran     theol- 
ogy of.   624f. 
Lutheran   Dogmatik   in,    845ff. 
CENTURY,     EiIGHTBENTH,     Confes- 
sion   in.    2,    150,    155. 
and  Socialism,   CSt. 
and   the   term   "  Symbolical    Books," 

74. 
Melanchthon     and     theologians     of, 

614,   625. 
and  Book  of  Concord,   726. 
Lutheran   Dogmatik  in.   847,   851. 
CENTURY,    NINETEENTH,   and  Con- 
fession.   2. 
CENTURY.     TWENTIEH,     and     Con- 
fession.   If. 
and     Formula     of     Concord,     683ff, 
751ff,   828f. 
CHALCEDON,   SYMBOL  OF,   788. 
CHARITY,      conscience      and      confes- 
sional   principle,    910,    Preface. 
CHARLES  v.,  relation  to  Ji-'ss.  Conf.. 
118.   124.  lePff.  204,   208ff,  251ff, 
342ff.      396ff.      420.     425f.      432ff, 
461f.   490ff.   522.   539.    565. 
disposition        toward        Evangelical 
Party,    195,    288f.    304,    309,    318, 
325,     405.     414,     486,     489.     513, 
520.    571f,    580.    583,    590f. 
character   of,    287f. 
call     for    Diet     at     Augsburg.     169, 

28(1. 
and  Henry  VIII.,  289n. 


and  Christian  of  Denmark,   325. 
and    Clement    VII,    168,    287,    292, 

304,    306,    312ff,    341,    386n,    462. 
coronation  of,   168,   305f,   341. 
achievements    of,    306. 
and  appeal  for  a  Christian  Council, 

311ff,   513. 
and    apology    to    Aug.    Conf.,    519, 

570f. 
his    "  commissions,"    491ff,    ollt. 
and  Paul  III,  590,  593. 
his  rescript,   518,   520,   538. 
at   Bologna,   312-318. 
at  Innsbruck,   319,  325-393. 
at    Augsburg,    393-521. 
and   Luther.     See   Luther. 
and    Melanchthon.       See    Melanch- 
thon. 
CHEMNITZ,      547,      597,      601,      606, 

624n,    639.    647,    651ff,    669,    674, 

706,    715,    724ff,    743,   781,   836ff, 

845f. 
CHILIASM,     178. 
CHRIST,    the   centre   of  the   Lutheran 

Confession,    138.    771,    777,    876, 

877,    Preface,    Introduction, 
and  various  kinds  of  Protestantism, 

140. 
the   high    priest   of   our   Confession, 

147. 
and   the   Confession   of  Faith,    147. 
in    Formula    of    Concord,    751,    754, 

761f,    7G4ff,    820. 
and    the    Reformation,    772,    784. 
person   of,    770-816,   Introduction, 
and    unionism,    2. 
Confession   as  to  Himself,    96. 
and   condemnation,   49. 
and  conviction.  95. 
and  confession.  95. 
CHRISTIAN  and  witness-bearing,   20. 
and  Bible,   28. 
and   Law.    79. 
and  Confession,   28. 
how   brought   to    faith,    29. 
CHRISTIANITY,     modern,     32,     34ff, 

38ff. 
and    discipline,    53. 
Confessional,    96. 

original   "Article   of   Faith  "  of,   97. 
unity  of,    917,   918. 
a  life  complete,   924. 
and  problems  of  the  day,  924. 
and    its    four-branched    Confession, 

Preface. 
CHRISTENDOM,    reuniting    of.    919. 
CHRISTOLOGY,   in   Augs.   Conf.,    260, 

778f. 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  764ff,  792ft. 
Luther's,   771ff. 
in  Formula  of  Concord,   779ff,   817- 

820,    826. 
CHRYSOSTOM,    270,   813. 
CHURCH,   the  apostolic,   21,   32. 
post-apostolic.    21,    32. 
defined.    19f,    37,    112. 
and   confessions,    12f,   82,    88,   95. 
main   function   of,   77. 
and  creeds,   96. 
marks  of,    20,   4S,   84. 
unity  of,   36. 
design    of,    36,    41. 
historical    aspect    of,    21n. 
and  the  denominations,   38,   59. 
modern   view   of,   39. 
and   error,    41. 
and   State  in   Europe,    56n. 
not    based   on    contract,    69. 


INDEX. 


Oil) 


CHURCH   and   choice.   69. 

and  conscience,   80. 

foundation  of,   87,   95f. 

Pentecost,    96. 

cannot     compromise     her     doctrine, 
935. 

sphere     of     as     distinguished     from 
Home  and  State,  927. 

the    principle    and    mode    of    its    ac- 
tivity,   928. 

worth  of,  929. 

in    Augsburg    Confession,    125,    261, 
276ft. 

Church     and     State     in     Augsburg 
Confession,     129f,     276ff. 

in    Roman    Confession,    137. 

in    American    Protestantism,     139. 

in    Lutheran     Confession,     139. 

a    living   witness,    139. 

as   source  of   truth,   54,   139. 

and  the  Word,   139,  261,  Preface. 

and  Calvin,   142. 

and   Zwingli,    142. 

Lutheran   idea  of,    142. 

Confessional    principle    in,    144-155, 
165. 

properties    of,    894. 

difference     between     Lutheran     and 
other    Protestant    churches,     895. 

and  Living  Confession  of  Faith,  166. 

and   Sacraments,    261. 

in    Formula   of    Concord,    819. 

a   supposed    source   of  spiritual   au- 
thority,   875. 

the  one  church,  877. 

preserved  by  the  confessional  prin- 
ciple,  878. 

visible,   892,    893,    896. 

a   difference   between   Lutheran   and 
Reformed    Christianity,    896. 

institutional,    897. 

unity   of,    908,    914,    915. 

brotherhood   of,   914. 

visibility   of,    914. 

visualization     of,     915. 

visible,   917. 

Roman,    917. 

Greek,    917. 

body   of   Christ,   919. 

and    society,    924-926. 

its    nature    and    duties    under    the 
confessional    principle,    930. 

the  true    942. 
CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND,    108n,    682. 
CHYTR^US,    291n,    305n,    311n,    360. 
407,    533,    535,    554.    560f,    597, 
639,    647,    651f,    655f,    658,    715, 
726f.    Preface. 
CIVIL    AFFAIRS.      See    Htate. 

civil    government    and    the    church, 
895 
CLEMENT    OF   ALEXANDRIA,    765. 
CLEVE.    677. 
COBURG,    172,    174,    224,    242,    249. 

324,    327ff,    635.    671. 
COCHL^US,     196f,     384,     491,     494f. 

503f. 
CoLESTIN,  535,   537,  560,  563,   567f, 
727.     See    also    in    chaps.    XIX, 
XX.    Preface. 
COLOGNE,   579,   584. 
COMITY    vs.    UNITY,    918. 
COMMISSIONS,        THE        IMPERIAL, 

491ff,    511f. 
COMMUNICATIO    IDIOMATUM,    599, 
605,    659,    780ff,    Introduction. 


CONCORDIA.      See    Formula    of    Con- 
cord. 
CONDEMNATION,   not  popular,   39. 

and   Lutheran   Church,   44ff. 

of   wrong   doctrines,    890. 
CONFESSIONAL      PRINCIPLE,       the 
vid.      "Principle."      vid.     Preface, 
and    Introduction. 

co-operation   of,   toward   those  with- 
out,  902. 

and    conscience,    910,    917. 

and    denominational    Protestantism. 
921. 

and   future   of   Lutheran   Church   in 
America,    923. 

and    social    life.    925,    926. 

breadth   of,    934. 

and   its  extremes,    Introduction. 

its  .social   results,    932. 

a  source  of  strength  to  the  church, 
932,  940. 
CONFESSIONAL  HISTORY  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  The.  Preface, 
and  Introduction. 
CONFESSION.  See  Question,  Con- 
fessional. 

defined,    16. 

province    of,    16. 

loyalty    to,     17,    Preface. 

and   creeds,    32. 

differentiated    from    Scripture,    30f. 

why    necessary,    32. 

and  doctrine,   32. 

and  heresy.    32. 

and   condemnation,    53. 

and   conscience,    55,    58. 

and    truth,    54. 

binding    power   of,    55,    88,    91,    In- 
troduction. 

subscriptions   to,   Introduction. 

purpose  of.   55.   60,   62ff,   71. 

and   doctrine,    55. 

legal  aspect  of,   56. 

not    a   contract,    57. 

value   of  and  grace  of  God,   58. 

why   common,    58. 

and  the  Christian   unities,  58. 

and    Providence,    62. 

contents    of,    65n. 

and   the   oppressed,   78f. 

and  Christ,   95. 

causes   of   rebellion,    79. 

and    limitations,    80ff. 

and   children,   85. 

essence  of,    90,    Introduction. 

unalterable.    Introduction. 

and  faith,  94. 

Pentecost,  96f. 

original    "Article,"    97. 

and   Paul's   summaries,    98. 

apostolic    insistence    on,    100. 

and    New   Testament,    99. 

and    tradition,    101. 

and  Apostolic  Fathers,  lOlff. 

first,    102. 

Roman    form    of,    102f. 

and   faith,   144f. 

public,    144f. 

and  extension   ot  the  church,   145. 

and  Word  of  God,   145. 

of   Peter,    145. 

power  of  personal,  146. 

of    the    Church,    146. 

and    "  Symbols,"    146. 

Christ  the  High  Prie.st  of,   147. 

development  of  in  the  church,  147f, 
165. 


950 


INDEX. 


CONFESSION    and    the    Reformation, 

148. 

and  Lutheranism,   148. 

Lutheran     Confession,     History     of, 
Preface. 

orthodoxy     and     indifferentism     in, 
148ff.    154,    624. 

and   Calixtus,    149n,    150. 

historical    study    of,    151ff. 

and    rationalism,    155. 

relation  of  Lutheranism  to,  155. 

and    "  Symbol,"    159. 

Luther's   attitude   towards,    164f. 

weakness   of   a    living,    166. 

in    Augsburg    Confession,    257,    269. 

and    Dogmatics,    856ff. 

a    "  wide-open,"    858. 

fidelity  to,   942,   943. 
CON'FESSIONS   defined,    9ff,    58. 

and  Scripture,   9ff. 

and    unity,    77. 

origin  of,   21f. 

further   development   necessary,    14. 

unalterable,    61n. 

uses  of,   21. 

value  of,   73f. 

historical  aspect  of,  21f. 

transient   and   permanent,    22. 

multiplicity   of,    691ff. 

active  in  daily   life,   933.  939. 

not  our  idols,   25.    940. 

confessional    question,    941. 
CONFESSIONS,        LUTHERAN,        11. 
See     Respective     Titles, 
ties. 

defined,  74. 

origin  of,   76. 

purpose  of,  56,  74ff. 

earliest.    111. 

an    organism,    25. 

sum    of   Lutheran   doctrine,   63f. 

utility  of,   15,   24f. 

validity  of,  76. 

and    Confession,    54. 

and   orthodoxy.    59. 

why  more  than  one,   IB. 

and  obligation.  74. 

and  Lessing,  59. 

and  Carl   Hase.   59. 

between   death   of  Luther   and   For- 
mula  of   CoBcord,    605. 

political    influence    in,    667ff. 

and  the   Melanchthonians,   748. 

and  (Ecumenical   Creeds,  832ff. 

in  Book  of  Concord,  834f. 
CONFESSION,    LUTHERAN,     15.     25, 
31.    33ff,    54.    94n,    138,    163-167, 
637,    679,    688ft. 

penetrating   our   social    life,    925. 
CONFESSION,        REFORMED.        and 
Lutheran.    94n. 

place  of  God   in,    137. 
CONFESSION.     ROMAN,     position     of 

the  church  in,   137. 
CONFESSIO    SAXONICA,    532,    555f, 
588.    595.    833. 

Suevica,    833. 
CONFESSION,    STRASBURG,    579. 
CONFESSION,    TETRAPOLITAN,    and 
Lutheranism,    126. 

and    Bucer,   576. 
CONFESSION,  ZWINGLIAN,  and  Lu- 
theranism.   126. 
CONFIRMATION,    81. 
CONFUTATION,      THE,      462f.      474. 
478f,    481ff,    489,    511,    519,    525, 
570,    634. 


CONGREGATION,    39,    65n,    87. 
CONSOIENCE,   54f,   58,   80,   89. 

and     Confessional     Principle,     910. 
and   problems  of  the   day,   924. 
CONSENSUS     DRESDENSIS.    714. 
CONSTANCE,    182,    295. 
CONSTITUTION     OF     THE     UNITED 

STATES,    19,    35,    69. 
CONTRACT.      See  Symbol,  Agreement, 

TT,,   61,   65ff. 
CONTROVERSIES,      the      causes      of, 
593f,    642f. 
and   Melanchthon,    591f,    596ff,    624, 

642f. 
and    Lutheranism,    592ff,    701ff. 
and  Formula  of  Concord,   591,   593, 

641,    668f.    70Sf,    718f.    747f. 
and   Leipzig    Interim,    595f. 
the   two   great  parties,   597f,    602f. 
and       the      Lutheran       Confessions, 

644ft. 
eucharistic,   596,   599,   605,   641. 
antinomistic,    533,    581,    598,    641, 

763. 
Crypto-Calvinistic,    534,     597,    599, 

605f. 
Synergistic,    600f,    638,    641. 
adiaphoristic,    533,    591,    596,    600, 

641,    644. 
Osiandrian,     596,     599,     638,     641, 

753,  757,   759. 
Majoristic,   596,   598,   638,  641. 
CONVICTiION,    35,    85.    91,    95,    910, 

911. 
CO-OPERATION,    possibility    of,    900, 
901. 
impossibility    of,    902. 
dangers  of.   897,    898. 
rule  for,   903. 

compared    with    fellowship,    904. 
CORDATUS,   323,   412,   439.  466f.  519. 
CORPORA     DOCTRINE,     533f,     637f, 

645ff,   673ft,   693,   710,   714.  833. 

CORPUS     CHRISTI,     185,     186,     1!  5. 

285,    377,    386f.    395f,    399.    40nff. 

CORPUS        DOCTRINE        PHILIPPI- 

CUM,    532ff,    605,    639,    646,    649, 

705,    714,    833. 

CORPUS  JULIUM,  605,  673,  696,  705. 

COUNCIL,    appeal    to,    188,    241,    294, 

310tf,    337,    380. 
CREED,     APOSTLES',     104ft. 
origin   of,    22. 
form    of.    70. 
foundation  of.   98,   101. 
and    New   Testament,    100. 
and  Luther's  Small  Catechism,   112. 
"  symbol  "    as    title    of,    156f. 
as  confession,   161. 
and   A.   C,    380. 

not    universally    accepted,.   666f. 
and    Athanasian    Creed,    738. 
CREED.    ATHANASIAN,     107«t. 
origin   of.    22. 

not    universally    accepted,    666. 
and   other   oecumenical   creeds,    107, 
738. 
GENERAL,   expression   of  faith,   28. 
defined,    30,    96. 
necessary,    30ft. 
NICENE,    105ff. 
origin  of.    22. 
foundation   of.    98. 
and   Reformed  Church,   lOon. 
Melanchthon's    explanation    of,    588. 
only   universal   creed.    106. 
conditions  leading  to,   666f. 


INDEX. 


951 


NICENE  and  Athanasian  Creed,   738. 

personal,    29. 

defined,    18. 

differentiated  from  Bible  and  faith, 
32. 
CREEDS.     See   Respective  Names  of, 

and   Abuses.   18n. 

origin   of,    20,    22. 

and   faith,   28,    32. 

results  of  experience,   31. 

historical    aspect   of,    19,    23. 

multiplication    of    desirable,    23. 

necessary,    24f. 

contain  God's  plan,   23. 

objections    to,    23ff.    27,    33f. 

differentiated    from    Scripture,    31. 

purpo.se   of,    31. 

and    Christianity.    32. 

and  Confession,   32,   937,   938. 
(ECUMENICAL,   defined,   62. 

purpose  of,   62. 

connection    with    Augsburg    Confes- 
sion.   121f,    776. 

and   public   confession,    148. 

not   really    oecumenical,    666. 

and    the    communicatio    idiomatum, 
812f. 

adoption     of    in     Lutheranism,     62, 
831ff. 

"of  Christendom,"  Preface. 
CRELL,   597,   668,   839. 
CRUCIGER,    597,    668. 
CUR^US,   653. 

CYPRIAN,      156f,      266,      268,      289n, 
290n,     374,     376ff.     391.     417n, 
421n,   434,   475n,   503,   543,   Pre- 
face. 
CYRIL,   790, 


D'AILLY,    Introduction. 
DANISH    CHURCH,    673. 
DECLARATION  OP  INDEPEN- 

DENCE,   19. 
DELAWARE,    settlements    on. 
confessional    basis    of,    863f. 
DELITZSCH.    FRIEDRICH,    2. 
DEMOCRACY   and   authority,   40. 
DENMARK,    672f,    724. 
Christian   of,    325. 
Christian   III   of,    712. 
DENNY,   98n. 

DENOMINATMONS    and    the    commu- 
nion of  saints,  36. 
and  the  Church,  38. 
and   rivalry,   38. 
and  degrees  of  truth,   59. 
respective     confessions     unalterable, 

61n.   920. 
denominational    Protestantism,    920. 
DESCENSUS,    657,    753. 
DIETRICH.     VEIT,     351,     446,     448, 

450.    453. 
DIFFERENTIATION    of    function     in 
church.     State     and     home,     925, 
926. 
DISCIPLINE,  CHURCH,  44ff,  53,  929, 

930. 
DOCTRINE  and  toleration,   38. 

rule  of,   55. 
DOCTRINES,  unity  of  Christian,  759ff. 
DOGMATICS    and    Formula    of    Con- 
cord,  741f. 
Lutheran.    845ff. 
in  seventeenth  century,  845ff. 
in  eighteenth  century,  847,  851. 


critics  of,  848ff. 

and    Confession,    856ff. 
DOLTZIG,    HANS    VON,    335,    362f. 
DOMINICANS,    349. 
DONATISTS,    261. 
DONAUWORTH,  672. 
DORNER,    840. 
DORT,    CANONS   OF,    735. 
DOUBT  and  Lutheran  Church,   84. 
DOUBTFUL  THINGS,   liberty  in,  922. 
DRESDEN,  647,   657f,    712,  832,   835f. 
DUNS    SCOTUS,    765. 

E 

EASTERN    CHURCH    and    Lutheran- 
ism,  788. 
EBER,   597. 
EBERSTEIN,  672. 
ECCLESIASTICISM,    877,    878. 
ECK.   JOHN.   173,   174.   179,   195,   229, 
326,    343f,    348,    35aft,    433f,    474, 
491,     494,    502,     506,     511,     530, 
535,    540.    543,    549f,   582,    616. 
ECKHART,   765. 
EDITIO       PRINCEPS,       Introduction. 

See    Augsburg    Confession. 
EDICTS,   PAPAL.   109. 
EDUCATION,    931. 
EINBECK,     672. 
EISLEBEN,  171,  581. 
ELECTOR  JOHN   OF   SAXONY,   rela- 
tion to  Augsburg  Confession,  117f, 
169ff,      236ft,     303,      320ff,      354f, 
396,    417ff,    433f,    511,    515,    543, 
565,  633.   728,   822,    Introduction. 
and  Melanchthon,  170ff,  179ff,  229ff, 
302f.    320ff,    355,    384f,    417,    471, 
613,   633. 
and  Luther.   172,    174ff,   294,   SOOff, 
320ff,  328,   335ff,   349f,   353f,   356, 
358ff,    359,    371f,    411,    463,    485f, 
507,    510f,   516f,   520. 
and  Charles  V.,  169,  I76f,  185    19P 
285ff,     302ff,     326,     334ft,     344f, 
359,  362f,  369ff,  385f,  394ff,  426, 
476ff,    486,    489,    513ff. 
and    Chancellor    Briick,    169f,    183, 
236,     320.     328,     335,     359,     362, 
371f,    374,    379,    426.    500. 
and  the  Federation,    295f,   301. 
character  of,    300f. 
and  Philip  of  Hesse,  compared,  301. 
and   Schmalkald   Loague,    571. 
at  Torgau,  320-324. 
at  Weimar,   324. 
at    Coburg,    324,    327-330. 
at  Augsburg,    334-521. 
letters     of     to     Luther,     349f,     354, 
382.  445f. 
ELIZABETH,  QUEEN,  640,  662,  682n, 

844n. 
EMERSON,   765. 
ENGLISH       LUTHERAN       CHURCH, 

Kunze  the   founder  of,   872. 
ENVIRONMENT,    80. 
EPICURUS,    69. 
ERASMUS,   194,  612,   617n,  624,   626, 

765. 
ERFURTH.   672. 
ERROR   and   church,   41. 

and  word,   42. 
ESSLINGEN,   672. 

ESTATES,  EVANGELICAL,  the,  118, 
168,  182ff,  199,  234,  241,  243f, 
246,  293,  304.  310,  373ff,  385f. 
391,    398,    402f,    414,    418f,    434, 


952 


INDEX. 


464f.  498f.  530,  552ff,  571ft, 
657ff,    662ff,    714,    832.    836,   838. 

EUNUCH,  the  baptism  of,  98. 

EUTYCHIANISM,    107. 

EXAMEN  ORDINANDORUM.  532, 
588,    705. 

EXCLUSION  and  the  Lutheran 
Church,   44ff. 

EXCLU9IVBNESS.  34,  36. 

EXCOMMUNICATION,    45f,    53. 

EXEGESIS  PERSPICUA,  650,  653. 

EXORDIUM,  Introduction.  See  Me- 
lanchthon.  Introduction  to  Augs- 
burg  Confession. 


F 


FABRICIUS,   568,   728. 
FAITH,  the  Evangelical,  1. 
expressed  in  a  creed,  28. 
how  produced,    29. 
confession  of,   29. 
differentiated  from  Bible  and  Creed, 

32. 
rule  of,   32.  55. 
and  Lutheran  Church,  84. 
defined,  93. 
and  testimony,  93. 
and  history,  93. 
as  source  of  Confession,  144f. 
in   Aug.   Conf..   260f. 
and  Reason.  875. 
the   one.    877. 
unity  in.  918,  932. 
FALCKNER.  JUSTUS,  861,  939. 
FALL,  THE.      Sec  Oricnnal  Sin. 
FAMILY,   69.      See  chapter  42. 
FANATICISM,   29. 

FEDERATION,    183,    295ff,    309,    879. 
Luther  and  Melanchthon  on,  891. 
Federation    to-day,    894,    895.    898. 
American   Protestant,   895f,   919. 
FELLOWSHIP.    900. 

altar,    34.    904,    Luther    on.    Intro- 
duction, 
the  true  principle  of,  904ff. 
based  on  an  eternal  unity,  908. 
FENELON,    765. 

FERDINAND.         ARCHDUKE.        291. 

293f,    303,    305f,    319.    325.    341. 

361,     386,    394,    396ff,    424,    519, 

551. 

FILIOQUE,   105f. 

FLACIUS,    216,    588,    596f,    598,    600, 

604,    641,    644ff,    701,    724f. 
FORMS  and  Lutheran  Faith,   7. 
FORMULA  OF  CONCORD,  complimen- 
tary, 25,  64. 
title  of,    72. 

validity    of,     105.     106n.     Introduc- 
tion. 
and  Confession,  72f,  161,  678f,  681- 

698,    699. 

and   Augsburg   Confession,    53.    357, 

534,     560,     562,     594f.     677f.     714, 

719,  731.   736f.   740.  751ff,  817ft. 

821ff,   834. 

and     Naumburg     Convention,     550, 

604. 
and  Athanasian   Creed,   107f. 
occasion    of,    591,    593ff,    641,    669. 

700ff,   718ff.   747f. 
authors  of.   597,   721ft,   732ff. 
and   Providence,   593,   662,    700-716, 

S29ff. 
influence   of   Melanchthon   in,   617nj 
743.  744n,  829, 


introduction  of,  661-680. 

origin  of,  52.  57.  83,  637-660.  712ff. 

effect  of  introduction  of,   679f. 

and  the  Estates,   657ff.   662ff. 

testing  of,  662,  711. 

subscription   to.   659f.    662ff.    716. 

no   one   forced   to   sign,    664f,   669ff, 

Introduction, 
and   Rome   and   Emperor.    661. 
objections   to,    662f,    672ft.   682f. 
symbolical   authority  of,  678t. 
extent  of  adoption,   669.   671f,  678f, 

716. 
real   confessional   validity   of,    679. 
opponents  of,   681f. 
reply   to   objections,    683ff. 
and    the    twentieth    century,    683S, 

751ft,    828f. 
and  progress,  686f. 
danger  in   rejecting,   685. 
verdict  of  history  to,  688ft. 
not  simply  for  theologians,  689. 
and   Lutheranism,   667,    678f.   688ff, 

742f,    821-831,    852n. 
confessional    importance    of,    690. 
need  of,   24,   691ft,   703tt. 
the  call  for,  711ft. 
and    Elector    Augustus    of    Saxony, 

712ff. 
one  object  of,   704. 
motive  of,   717ft. 
and   unionism,   824ft. 
and  Protestantism,  829f. 
preface  to,  57n.  717-720.  741f,  745. 
purpose  of,  53,  56,  64,   74,  83,  729. 
external   form  of,    729-745. 
as  a  Commentary,   730f,   740. 
and   Luther,    733f.    743,    781ft,    820, 

829. 
as  a  "new  confesson,"  732fi. 
antagonism  of,   737tt. 
not    a    treatise   on    dogmatics.    741f. 
subject  matter  of,   746-769. 
and    Scripture,    749f. 
unity  of  doctrine  in,  759ff. 
on  the  Word.   752.  826. 
on   original    sin.    752.    754f. 
on    free    will    and    synergism.    752, 

755,  827. 
on  justification  by  faith,  753,  755ff, 

827. 
on  good   works,    753,   762,   829. 
on  law  and  gospel.  753.  763f,  826fE. 
on  Lord's   Supper,   753,   764ft,   827f. 
christology    of,    779ff. 
its   doctrine   of   Christ's    person    not 

new,    781ff. 
on    Christ,    751,     754,    761f,    764ff, 

817-820.    826. 
on    the    descensus,    753. 
on    Ecclesiastical    Rites,    753f. 
on    Predestination,    819. 
confessed    in    America,    865-873. 
and  problems  of  the  day,  924.   939, 

940,   941. 
EPITOME,     definition     of     "Symbol." 

159. 
origin  of,   658. 
and    Solida    Declaratio,    697f,    730f, 

744. 
author   of.    721f. 
and     modern      religious     problems, 

779f. 
SOLIDA    DECLARATIO,    use    of   term 

"  symbol."   160. 
origin   of.   659. 
FORREST,  803. 


INDEX. 


953 


FdRSTEMANN,    223,    245,    322,    335. 

See    chapter    XIX. 
FRANCIS    I.,    575. 
FRANK,   690,    732. 
FRANKFORT,     580,    656,    662f,    676, 

718. 
FRANKFORT  RECESS,  551,  556,  606, 

645,   833,   900. 
FUNK,    668. 


G 


GALATIANS.   Luther  on,  714. 

CALLUS,   597. 

GENOA,    304. 

GERHARD,   845f. 

GEORGE,  DUKE,  176,  195,  326,  350, 
358,    361,    458,    462,    485,    511. 

GERSON,    271,    276,    765. 

GINGEN,    672. 

GLEICHEN,   672. 

GNESIO-LUTHERANS,  529f,  554, 
597ff,  642,  645ff,  693,  724,  742, 
768,   824. 

GNOSTICISM,    101,    765,    935. 

GOD,    in   Augsburg  Confession,    259. 
in    Reformed   Confession,    137. 
in  various  Protestant  systems,   141. 

GOOD  WORKS,   in  Aug.   Conf.,   261. 
in    Formula    of    Concord,    753,    762, 

829. 
See  also  chapters  on  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. 

GOSLAR,    672,    674. 

GOSPEL,  in  Augsburg  Confession, 
127f     937. 

GoTTINGEN,   672,   674. 

GRUMBACH,  668. 

GUSTAVUS  ADOLPHUS,   830. 

GUYON,   765. 


H 


HAGENAU,    580,    672. 

HALBERSTADT,    677.  . 

HALLE,    672. 

HAMBURG,   599,    651,   657,   672,   724. 

HAMELN,    672. 

HANAU,   672. 

HANNOVER,    672,   674. 

HARNACK,    103,   666,    702,    773. 

HARTWIG  and  the  Symbolical  Books, 
870. 

HASE,   CARL,   59. 

HAUSMANN,    NICHOLAS,   323,    329. 
See  also  chap.  XIX. 

HEGEL,    67. 

HEILBRONN,    182,    522,    672. 

HELLER,   487,    493f,   500,   511. 

HBNNEBERG,   654,   671. 
Count  Ernest  of,   654. 

HENRY   VIII.,    289n,    575. 

HERESY,   32,   41. 

HERETICS,    42. 

HERZBERG,   671. 

HESHUSIUS,    597.    657. 

HESS,    COBAN,    329. 

HESSE,  209,  646.  673,  676f,  724. 
Landgrave  of,  120,  169,  183ff,  198f, 
211,  234f,  237ff,  241,  244.  246, 
292f,  295ff,  301f,  306ff,  310,  340, 
357ff,  373f,  391f,  395f,  399,  403, 
406,  415,  419,  422,  434,  465, 
490,  500,  512,  543,  551f,  557. 
572,  576.  5S2.  585,  590.  892, 
900,    Introduction. 


HESSE         CASSEL,         LANDGRAVE 

WILLIAM    OF,    648f,    663. 
HILDESHBIM,    672. 
HOHENLOHE,    072. 
HOFSTATTEK,     504  tT. 
HOLLAZIUS,    73f,    846f. 
HOLY     DAYS,     in     Aug.     Conf.,     257, 

263,    280. 
HOLY  GHOST,   20. 

in   Aug.    Conf..    260. 
HOLSTEIN,  657f.  672,  674,  676. 
HOME  and  problems  of  the  day,   925. 
926. 

degeneracy  of  and  the  church,   926. 

sphere     of     as     distinguished     from 
Church  and  State,   927. 

the    principle    and    the    mode    of    its 
activity,    928. 

worth  of,  929. 
HONIUS,  792. 
HoRNIA,    672. 
HORST,    668. 

HOSPINIAN,    681,    722,    800. 
HOYA,    653,    672. 
HUGO  OF  ST.    VICTOR,   765. 
HUNGARY,  361,  672. 
HUTTER,    670,    845. 

I 

ILLYRICUS,    656. 

IMMIGRATION,   Lutheran  to  America 

in   19th  century,  860f. 
INDIFFERENTISM,     Protestant,     878, 

879 
INDIVIDUALISM,        39ff,        47,        91, 

852ff. 
INDULGENCES  and  Luther,  180,  231, 

254f.  . 

INFUSED      RIGHTEOUSNESS,      756, 

827 
INGOLDSTADT,    172f,    229,    343. 
INNSBRUCK,     176,     185,     319,     325f, 

335,    345,    350,    358,    360ff,    38'i, 

393. 
INSTITUTIONS,    and   authority,   40. 

teachers'    loyalty.    85. 
INSTALLATION,    81. 
INSTRUCTION,    55f. 
"  INTER-CHANGE,"     70. 
INTERNATIONAI    LUTHERAN   CON- 
FERENCE,  3. 
INVESTIGATION,    88£f. 
INVESTITURE,    169.    477f. 
ISSNY,   672. 


JACOBS,  H.  E.,  en.  61n,  110,  llln, 
134f,  138,  571n,  624,  679,  691, 
752f,   764f,  803f,   815. 

JANSENISM,    747. 

JENA,    554,    597,    649f,    724. 

JEROME,    813. 

JESUITS,    Society    of,    704. 

"  JESUS   THE   MESSIAH,"  97. 

JONAS,  JUSTUS,  126.  170f,  187, 
200f,  243,  320ff.  329ff.  ?"■  . 
410,  412,  418,  439,  442,  444, 
450,  453,  459,  464,  469,  473, 
480f,  502,  509,  514,  523,  596. 
616. 

JUDEX,    597. 

JUSTIFICATION    in     Augsburg    Con- 
fession,  127,   260. 
in   Formula  of  Concord,    753,   755ff, 

827. 
a    fundamental    doctrine,    761n. 


954 


INDE  X 


K 


KAHNIS,   118,  120n,  636. 
KAISER,    LEONARD.    572. 
KANT,   67f. 
KaRNTHEN,    672. 
KATTENBUSCH,  103. 
KAUFBEUERN,    672. 
KAWERAU,    Introduction. 
A   KEMPIS,   THOMAS,   765. 
KEMPTEN,  522,  672. 
KNOX,  912. 
KOCHERTHAL,  939. 
KOLDE,  Preface. 
KoLLNER,    88n,    678. 
KORNER,    6.56,    658. 
KRAIN,   672. 
KRAUTH,  C.  P.,  846. 

Analytical    Bibliography,    Preface. 
Chronicle,   Preface. 
The  Conservative  Reformation,  Pre- 
face. 
on  Lutheran  Confe.sfjions,  G97f,  801. 

858.    cp.    also    28n. 
on  Scripture  and  Confession,  30,  32. 
on  Word  of  God,   33. 
on    tolerance    of    Lutheran    Church, 

42-44. 
on  Augsburg  Confession,  130f,  132f, 

563ff.   727. 
on    Melanchthon's    letter   to    Luther, 

May  22nd,   367f. 
on    Formula    of    Concord,    594,    691, 

694,   703f.   830. 
on  Melanchthon,  705f. 
on   Chemnitz.    725f. 
on    two    natures    of    Christ,     797n, 

■  798f,  805n,  812. 
on   Sacrament,   828n. 
on  Pietism,   8o0f. 
KULMBACH,   671. 
KUNZE.   J.   W.,    102n.    103. 
KUNZE.   J.   C. 

the    founder    of    English    Lutheran- 
ism,  872. 
and   the  symbolical  books,   872. 
KURTZ    and    the    Symbolical    Books, 
870. 

L 

LAMBETH    CONFERENCE,    2. 
LANDAU,    672. 
LATITUDINARIANISM,    41. 

See  al.so  chaps.   XXXIX-XLI. 
LAUENBURG,    672. 
LAUSITZ,   677. 
LAW,   ecclesiastical,   55. 
and  love,  79. 
and  service,  80. 
and  Gospel  in  Formula  of  Concord, 

753,  763f.  82b. 
in    Formula    of    Concord,    753,    763, 
826f. 
LEGALISM,    29. 
LEIGNITZ,   676. 
LEININGEN,  672. 

LEIPZIG,    532.    552.    597,    600,    647, 
649,   656.   726,  838. 
Theological   Faculty  confesses  Sym- 
bolical     Books     in     Muhlenberg's 
Ordination    Certificate.    868. 
Interim,  2.  488,  504,  530,  588.  591f, 
595f,     603,     625,     637,     641,     643, 
819n. 
LEPSIUS    and   the   Symbolical    Books, 

871. 
LESSING.  59.  153. 


LEUTKIRCH,  672. 
LIBERALISM.      See  Liberty. 

cause  of.   38ff. 

See    also    chaps.    XL-XLII. 
LIBERALITY,    879,    880.      See  tolera- 
tion, true  and  false,  880. 
LIBERTY,    and    superficiality,    28. 

misused,    23f. 

and  Luther,   24. 

illustrated,   78. 

and  law,  80. 

Christian,   preserved  by  the  Confes- 
sional   Principle,    878. 

in  doubtful   things,    922. 
LICHTENBERG    CONVENTION,    656. 

714f,  725. 
LIGHT,   INNER,   and  the  sects,   l&n. 

and  the  Quakers,  30. 
LIMBURG.  672. 
LIMITATIONS,  a  necessity,  79. 
LINDANUS.    WILLIAM,   536f. 
LINDAU,    672. 
LINDSAY,     306,     571n,     772,     786n, 

801  :f. 

LINK,   W.,   329f,   381.   518. 
LITURGY,   in  Aug.   Conf.,   257. 
LOCI.     See  Melanchthon. 
LOESCHER,    VALENTINE,   151. 
LOOFS.    Introduction. 
LORD'S    SUPPER,    the    main    consid- 
eration   in,    7. 

and   its   fellowship,    34. 

in   Aug.    Conf.,    262,    266.    269. 

in   Formula  of  Concord,   753,   764ff, 
827f.      See   Luther. 

Schwenkfeldt's  teaching  of,    760. 

and     Melanchthon.       See     Melanch- 
thon. 

in    Lutheranism   vs.    other    systems, 

769,  827.    Introduction. 
See   commuyiicatio  idiomatum. 
See   Ubiquity. 

See    Control  crsies,   Encharistic. 
rooted    in    Person    of    Christ,    764ff, 

770,  792ff.   Introduction. 
essence  of,  904,  905,  906. 

See  also  Sacraments  and  Fellowship. 
LOVE   and  Law,    79. 

personal,    93. 

and  confessional  principle,  910,  932. 
LoWENSTEIN,  672. 
LOY,  M.,  506f. 
LOYALTY,   and  pastors  and  teachers, 

84ff. 
LfrBECK,    672.    724. 
LiTNEBURG,    209.    645,    671f.    724. 

Dukes  of.    185,    188f,   211,   239,   20". 
396,    403,     406,     422.    426,    465, 
837. 
LUTHER     (See    Catechism    and    For- 
mula   of    Concord). 

as   a  confessor,    17n. 

and  the  Sixteenth  Century,   28. 

on  ecclesiastical  tyranny,  42. 

on    Athanasian    Creed,    107. 

how    he   became    a    Protestant,    24. 

and  liberty.   24. 

first  confessional   acts  of,   llOf. 

on   the   Small   Catechism,    112f. 

on  the  sacraments,   113. 

on    Confessional    obligation.     Intro- 
duction. 

confessional     development.     113. 

and    Lutheranism,    independent,    6n. 

loyalty   of.    23f. 

development     of    Lutheran     Confes- 
sion after  death  of.   25. 


INDEX. 


955 


LUTHER    and    America,    S59.    860. 
relation  to  Augs.  Conf.,   115f,  117f, 

121f,    126.    170ft.    191,    rZAi.  248f, 

254ff,      284f.     300,     320ff,     327ff, 

335ff,     353ft,     363ff,     375,     432ff, 

439ft-,   466ff,   510f,    529,    545,    563. 

667. 
on   Aug.   Conf.,   9n,   124n,   174,   250, 

356,  358f,   466ff,  545. 
and  rationalized  Protestantism,  143. 
and  word  "  symbol,"  157. 
and    indulgences,    180,    231,    254f. 
the      Living       Confession      of      his 

Church,   163,  166. 
and     Melanchthon     compared,     439, 

573.   574. 
and    Melanchthon.    llOf,    116,    174f, 

199,       234.       2r)4ff.      301,       327  ff, 

338,    350ff,    359,    363ff,    372,    384. 

392,    408.   430f.    438ff,    470,   472ff. 

501ff,      529.      545,      573ff,      610ff. 

84  Iff. 
attitude    toward    Rome.    191,    254f. 

338.     340,    438,    440ff.    480.    502. 

508ff.   580. 
attitude  toward   Confpssions.    164f. 
Confessional  value  of  utterances  of, 

167. 
and  Schwabach  Article."?.   173,   310. 
"Admonilion     to     Clcrr/t/     asfiembled 

at   Diet   at    Auasburr},"    195,    285. 

326.    333f,    339f.    388-390,    434. 
reports  of  Jonas   to,    200. 
the    Confession    submitted    to    him. 

May   nth.    175f.   224f,   248.   35ot  ; 

May   19-22,    ."^63.    367. 
on   Decree  of  Diet  of  Spires.   294. 
and   the   Federation.    295f,    298f. 
and    Marburg    Colloquy,     297.    307, 

578. 
apain=t   war   with   Charles   V..   304f. 

310. 
and     Lord's     Supper,      307ff.     584, 

644f.    777.    786f.    7P0ff. 
political    influence    of,    310. 
and  Zwingli,   307f,  781f,   790,  792ff. 
heroism    of.    440ff. 
and  tradition,   476. 
and   Charle.-.   V.,    2SSff.    319.    463. 
at   Coburg,   327-521,   635. 
and    the    Reformation,    573. 
and    Bucer,    576ff,    584. 
and    Wittenberg    Concord,    577f. 
and  Schmalkald  Articles,   580. 
death  of,   585. 
foresees   reaction.    590n. 
hero-worship   of,    610n. 
nnd    Wimpina.    346f. 
his    Christology,    771ff. 
on   federation,   891.    893. 
unable    to    abate   a    jot   of   doctrine. 

893. 
Carlyle  on,  912-914. 
Luther's  tolerance,   913,   914. 
letters    of.    Preface. 
letters  of.  to  his  wifp,  "07,   P^l'i,  5'' 9. 
to    Agricola,    307f,    411f,    441,    458, 

481. 
to  Landgrave  of  Hesse.   298.   308. 
to     Elector     .Tohn.     296,     297.     319. 

35Sf.    360.    441.    468f.    520. 
to  Jonas.   321,   331.   412.   442,    459f, 

464,   469.   473,   480t.    509. 
to   Hausmann,    323,    329. 
to    Cnrdatus,     323,    412,    439.     466f, 

519. 
to  Coban  Hess,  329. 


to  W.  Link.  329f.  381,  518. 

to     Melanchthon,     330.     333f.     384, 

441,   452ft.   460f,   466f.   473f,   477, 

479.    482f.    484,    507ft.    510,    514f, 

517. 
to  Spalatin,   332.  456f,  510. 
to  table  companions  in  Wittenberg, 

333. 
to  Jacob  Probst,  383. 
to  Zwilling,  412. 
to    Brenz,    441,    457. 
to  John  Frederick,  458f. 
to  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  467f. 
to   Spangler,   501.    520. 
LUTHERAN'     CONFESSION,     History 

of.  Preface. 
LUTHERANS,    what    they    should    re- 
member, 24. 
and  private  judgment.   43. 
LUTHERANISM   defined,   6n,   83.  Pre- 
face, 
pastors  and  teachers  of,  84ff. 
independent  of  Luther  and  Melanch- 

thon,   6n. 
prospective,    82.    84. 
and    rationalism.    83f,    848,    8511t. 
and  individualism,  43. 
and  unity.    43. 
and   legalism,   42. 
and  error,  42f. 
and   condemnation,    44ff. 
and  exclusion,   441t. 
and  the  State,   48n. 
and  Zwinglian  Confession,   126. 
and    Tetrapolitan    Confession,    126. 
and  Augsburg  Confession,   126,  133, 

427f.  822f. 
and    the    Reform,    134.    136t,    781ff, 

827,   843f. 
and    American    Protestantism,    138, 

141ff. 
and  Confession,  148,  155,  845. 
and    the    Melanchthonian    Principle, 

635f. 
in  Apology  to  Augs.  Con.,  570f. 
and  the  Controversie.s,   592ff.    701ff. 
Phillipists    and    extreme    Lutherans. 

597f,   602ft. 
checked  by  political   situation.   606f. 
efforts   to   secure   unity   in,    644ff. 
Formula    of    Concord    as    confession 

of,    667,    678f.    688ff,    742f,    821- 

831. 
multiplicity  of  confessions  in,  691ff. 
in   Sixteenth    Century,    700ff. 
vs.     all     other    Protestantism,     772. 

777, 
and   Eastern    Church.    788. 
misrepresentation  of,  800ft,   858. 
and   Book  of  Concord.   822,   824. 
and  individualism,   853f. 
in   America,    855. 
from    Book    of    Concord    to    present 

day.    840-858. 
historical    in   America,    859. 
capable  of  being  injured,   898. 
not  narrow-minded,   899,   908. 
and    church,    state   and   home,    926- 

928. 
and   social   problems,    927. 
LYRA,   20. 

M 

MAGDEBURG,    671,    676,   724. 
MAJOR.   597f.    641,    644. 
MAJORiITY,    the    question    of    in    re- 
ligion,  916. 


956 


INDEX. 


MAN,   the   doctrine  of,   in   modern   re- 
ligious thought,   138. 
in  Formula  of  Concord,   751. 
MANICH^ANS,   259. 
MANSFELD,    585,    653,    672. 

Count  Albrecht  of,    330. 
MANTUA,    Ambassador   of,   his   report 
concerning   the   Lutheran   princes, 
215. 
MANUEL.  JUAN,  289. 
MARBACH,   715. 

MARBURG     ARTICLES,      113f,      173, 
191,    544.    713. 
Colloquy,    2,    168,    297,    306ff,    576, 
578,    628,     782,    791n.     794,    809, 
842,  843n,  879,  900,  Introduction. 
MARHEINECKE,    153f. 
MARIUS,    196,    198. 
MARK,   Earldom  of,   677. 
MARTENSEN.   849. 
MARTHA,  confe.ssion  of,  95. 
MATRIMONY,     in     Aug.     Conf.,     267, 

273ff    931. 
MASS,   THE,   in  Aug.   Conf.,   268. 
MAULBRONN    FORMULA,    654f,    714. 
MAURENBRECHER,    193. 
MAXIMILIAN    II.,    711,    724. 
MAYENCE,   535,   537,    540,   560ff. 
Archbishop   of,    189,    198,   385,   394, 
401,     415,     420.     424,     462,     467f. 
474,    486,    535,   579. 
MEATS,    DISTINCTION    OF,    in    Aug. 

Conf.,  263,  270. 
MECKLENBURG,  653,  671,  715,  724. 

Ulrich  of,  554,  557. 
MEISSEN,   671. 

MELANCHTHON     on     condemnation, 
45f. 
relation  to  Aug.  Conf.,  57,  59n,  116, 
118ff,  126,  170ff,   191,  193f,  205ff, 
224f,     228ff,     242ff,     284f,     320ff, 
327f,     336,     338f,      350ff,      363ff, 
375ff,     417ff,     432ff,     436ff,     467, 
470ff,     487,     492ff,     504ff,     523ff, 
538f,    542ff,   563ff,    580,   621,    627, 
631,    633f,    706f,    767,    Introduc- 
tion, 
attitude    toward    Rome,    119f,    134, 
355,     379,     381,     384f,     392,    417, 
437f,   443,  470ff,  487f,   491ff,   588, 
623,   631,    633f. 
attitude  toward   Reformed  churches, 
11 9f,    134,    574ff,    588,    623,    625, 
631f,    708. 
and  Charles  V.,  119,  179f,  201,  213, 
234,    251ff.     287,    355,    380,    391. 
417,   419,   504f,   538,   633. 
on    Marburg    Colloquy,    297. 
severity     against     -sacramentarians, 

179,   338,   347. 
secret  correspondence  of,   198,    385, 

516. 
relation    to    Apology    to    A.    C.     See 

Apoloqil  to  Auf).   Conf. 
and  Unionism,    li9f,   134,  438,   488, 
492,    574ff,    584,    588f,    615,    620. 
629,  630ff. 
and  the  Confessional  Principle,  120, 

628f. 
and  the  word  "syvihol."  157. 
his  '■introduction,"  172,  175,  177. 
179-181f,  184,  187ff,  228ff,  233f, 
237ff,  251-259,  327,  336,  348, 
351,  355.  308,  418,  Introduction, 
negotiations  with  Valdes  and 
Rome,     186,     192ft,     201,     203ff, 


211ff,  215,  219f,  378f,  401f,  408ff, 

413,   417f,   420ff. 
and     Elector      John,      179ff,      229ff, 

302f,  320ff,  355,  471. 
his  "Loci"    525,      528,      532,      542, 

573f,  577,   58.0,  613n,  614,  622ft-, 

705,   743.  845ff. 
spirit  of,  587. 
later  negotiations  with  Papists,  588, 

819n. 
Brieger's  defense  of,  193. 
Tsehackert  on.  Introduction, 
lack   of   sympathy   with   Zwinglians, 

197.    237f,    308,    338,    621,    631, 

842. 
opinions  of,  499f,  502ff.  516. 
and    Bucer,    574ff,    621f,    624,    628, 

632,    768,    794. 
and  the  Reformation,   573. 
position     on     Lord's     Supper,     528, 

574ff,   580f,    684,   o9sf,   603,   621t, 

627f,    632,    645,    767f. 
and    Schmalkald    Articles.    580. 
on  Luther,  585f. 

failure    as    diplomat,    197ff,    633f. 
charges   of   Cochlieus   against,    197f. 
relation  with   Schepper,    186,   200. 
relation   with    Campeggi    and   Rome, 

192ff,      201,      206,      215ff.      471f, 

503f,   538f.    614,    633. 
report  of  Nuremberg  delegates  con- 
cerning.      See    Nuremberg    Dele- 

(latcx. 
report    of    the    "Schrift    aus    Augs- 
burg,"   202n,    214. 
and  Bruck,   187,  214,   216f,   633. 
consequences     of     His     negotiations, 

215,   417. 
and  Venetian   ambassador,    216f. 
and  Leipzig  Interim.   488,  504,  530, 

588.   591f,   595,  603,   625,   643. 
works  of,   532,  588,  617n,  618. 
as   leader,   587ff,   602. 
and   Augsburg   Interim,   591. 
and    the    controversies,    592f,    624, 

642f. 
a    synergist,    597,    600f,    623,    708, 

755,    827. 
death  of,  602. 

father  of  both  parties  in  Lutheran- 
ism,   602fr. 
scholastic     method     in,      603,     618, 

624f,  630,   642. 
character  of,  602,  610ff. 
as  humanist,   610,   612,   617ff. 
as  teacher,  612f,  616f,  620f. 
practical  tendency  of,  G14. 
his    "Rhetoric,"    618. 
and  philosophy,  619n. 
and  the  Lumen  Naturale,   619f. 
the  two   contradictory  principles  of, 

620,   624.    626. 
theology  of,  618ff. 
and  the  Reformation.  626ff. 
lack  of  faith,   627. 
mild  rationalism  of,  628. 
timidity  and  anxiety  of,   G29f.  G34f, 

ct  passim. 
willingness   to   compromise,   629. 
the  Melanchthonian  principle,  626ff, 

705ff. 
and   Flacius,    644f. 
bulk  of  works  of,   705,   748. 
uncertainty     in     language    of,    705, 

748. 
the  doctrinal  movement  of  his  mind, 

935. 


INDEX. 


957 


MELANCHTHON,      his      leaning      to 
Romanism,     935. 
on    not   abandoning   truth   necessary 

to   the   Church,    873. 
and  Luther,  880. 
on   Federation,   891. 
letters  of  to   the  Elector,   297,   ev.i. 
to  Luther,    350f,     353f,    448,    450f, 

472,    475f,    481ff,    501. 
to  Veit  Dietrich,   351. 
to  Camerarius,   413,   449. 
to   Myconius,   413. 
to   Luther,   May   22nd,   364ff. 
See  Tractatus  de  Potentate  I'apae. 
See  Nicene  Creed. 
See  Corpus   Philipjncum. 
See  Confessio  Saxonica. 
See  Exainen  Ordinandorwn. 
MEMMINGEN,   672. 

MERCURINUS,     CHANCELLOR,     185, 
316,     342,     362,     364,     383,     386f, 
387,    398,   402. 
plea   for  a   Council,   312-314. 
attitude    to    Lutheran    cause,    314, 
326.    361,    365. 
MEYRICK,    FREDERICK.    53. 
MINISTERIUM,  PENNSYLVANIA, 

860. 
and  the  Symbolical  Books,  870,  871. 
872.     and     the    whole    of    Chapt. 
XXXVIII. 
MINISTRY,    86f. 
MODERNISM,    876. 
MoMPELGARD.   671. 
MONASTERIES,    273ff. 
MOLLIOR,  668. 
MoRLIN,    597. 

MUHLENBERG,  HENRY  MELCHIOR, 
135,     841,     855,     861,     867-872, 
940. 
MdHLHAUSEN,    672. 
MttLLER,     77,     82,     109,     670f. 
MUNICH,    387,    393. 

fTNSTER.    672. 
MUSCULUS,    656.    658,   726. 
MYCONIUS,    196f,   413,   627. 
MYSTICISM,  765. 


N 


NORDHEIM,  672. 
NORDLINGEN.   672. 
NOVATIANS,   262. 

NUMBER    (of  Confessors)    and   Valid- 
ity, 54,  61f. 
NUREMBERG,    169,    172,    183f,    187ft, 

328f,    337,    366,    369,    372ff,    392, 

422,   671,   676. 
peace  of,  572. 
NUREMBERG   DELEGATES,   183. 
reports    of,     176,     196,     203ff,     212. 

21 3f,    226,     368,    379f,    408,    413. 

419,    496. 
relation    to    Aug.    Conf.,    177,    183. 

193,    208f,    226f,    236ff,    356,   38C, 

410,  413,  421f,  488. 


O 


OATH.  TEACHING,  88n. 
OB.J ECTOR,    characterized,    23f. 
objections    of,    27,    33f. 
answered,   24,   28ff. 
•'OBLIGATION,"   56,    68. 
OBLIGATION    and    Lutheran    Confes- 
sion, 74. 
defined.    91. 

and    pastors   and    teachers,    84ff,    92. 
and   investigation,   89. 
CECOLAMPADIUS,      307,      572,      627. 

632,   793,   796. 
OETTINGEN,    672. 
OLDENBURG,    653,    672. 
OPINION,    Lutheranism   not   a  matter 

of,    6n. 
OPPRESSION    of    the    mind    by    con- 
fessions,   78f. 
ORDER  GOOD   in  the  Church,   35. 
ORDINATION,   81,   86,    88n. 
ORIGEN,    178,    264.    765. 
ORIGINAL   SIN,   in   Aug.   Conf.,   259f. 
in    Formula   of   Concord,    752,    754f. 
ORTENBURG,  677. 
ORTHODOXY,    59,    148,    858. 
OSIANDER,      205f,     307,      596,      599f, 
624,    638,    641,    643f,    756f,    760f, 
827,  833,  838. 
OSNABRiJCK,    677. 


NAME.  LUTHERAN,  and  Confessional 

question,    5. 
and  rationalism,  84. 
NASSAU,    677. 

Count  of,    326,    344,    350,   369f,   374, 

477. 
NATHANAEL.    94. 

NATURE,     HUMAN     Partisan's     feel- 
ing  in.    39. 
NAUMBURG,      Diet     of,      531.      553ff, 

563,  568,  604,  606,  645,  647,  710, 

900. 
Princes    of.    663. 
NEANDER,    97.    840f.- 
NEO-PLATONISM,    765. 
NESTORIANISM,    107,    935. 

See   also   Chap.    XXXIII. 
NEUBURG,   671. 

NEUENAR,    COUNT   OF.    360f,    374. 
NEW    NETHERLANDS.     Confessional 

basis  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in, 

863-S65. 
NEW   YORK.      See  Neio   Netherlands. 
NTC/EA,   COUNCIL   OF,    259. 
NTCODEMUS.    94. 
NICUM,    Doctrinal    development    of — 

New  York  Ministerium,  872. 

(54 


PACK.    234     292. 

PALA'TINATE,    '   FREDERICK        OF, 
414,    477,    513,    531f,    552ff,    645f. 
Count    Wolfgang,    551ff. 
Count   ,Iohn   Casimir,   662,   673. 
Elector,   Louis  of,   66.S,    673,   836f. 

PALATINATE,    671,    673. 

PAPACY.      See   Rome,   Pope. 

PARABLE  OF  WHEAT  AND  TARES, 
41f. 

PARENTS    Training    children    in    loy- 
alty  tn    the    faith.    SPi. 

PARLIAMENT   OF   RELIGIONS,   2. 

PASSAU  AGREEMENT,   606. 

PAST   and   present,    14,   19,   23. 

PASTOR,    requisites,    84. 

PAUL,    on    Church   discipline,    45. 
and   condemnation.    49. 
confession   of,    146. 
quoted      in     Aug.      Conf..     260-261, 
266ff.    270.    272.    275,    277ff. 

PEASANTS'  WAR,  291,  416. 

PEGEL.   668. 

PELAGIANISM.    51f,    138,    755,    935. 

PENNSYLVANIA,    Lutheran   churches 
in,  860. 


958 


INDEX. 


PENNSYLVANIA     confessional     basis 
of    Stoever's    ctiurches,    865,    867. 
PERSON    OF   CHRIST.      See    Christ. 
••PERSONA"    (use  of  this  term  in  the 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity),    107. 
PETER   and   Church's   foundation,   87. 
confession   of,    94f£,    145. 
quoted  in  Aug.   Conf.,   280,  282. 
PEUCBR.  597,   668. 
PFAFF,  562,  564,  851. 
PFEFFINGER,    597,    600,    641. 
PHILIP.     See  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

See   Melanchthon. 
PHILIP   II..   of   Spain,   5.'^6f. 
PH.ILIPPISTS.    534,    597ff,   642.   645ff, 
663,    676,    681,    693,    723ff,    742, 
748,   804,   810,   824f,   900. 
PHILIPPI,   849. 

PHILOSOPHY.      See   Introduction. 
and  Melanchthon,  619n. 
Modern,  853. 
PHOTINUS,   765.    775. 
PHRASE,     significance     of     a     single, 

106. 
PIETISM,    847,    850. 
PILATE,    PONTIUS,   and  truth,   915. 
PLAN,  GOD'S,    is  set  forth   in   creeds. 
23. 
and    Luther,    23. 
and  the  Chri.stian  era,  28.   31. 
PLANCK,    151ff,    664,    670,    677f,    723, 

725. 
PLATFORM   defined,  59. 
PLATO,   619,   765. 
PLITT,     14n,     21n,     165,     432,     544n, 

614. 
POLEMICS,    41. 

Schaft   on   and   Irenics,   922. 
POLITICS.    35. 

not    a    decisive    factor    in    Lutheran 

Confessions.   667ff. 
and  check  of  Lutheranism,  606f. 
POMERANIA,    646,    657f,     672,     675f, 

724, 
POMERANUS.      See  Bugenhagen. 
POPE,   Clement   VII.,    168,   218,   312ff, 
325f,    337. 
Gelasius,  266. 
Hadrian  VI.,   290. 
Paul    III.,    590f. 
Pius    II.,    267 
Pius    IV..    552. 
POSSEVINUS,    728. 
PRAGUE.   724. 
PREACHER,   main   function   of,   77. 

and    the    Confession,    77.    86. 
PREACHING    is    a    confession, _144ff. 

referred    to    in    Ane.    ("^onf      ""m. 
PREACHING,       PROTESTANT.      in 
Augsburg,    177,     184f,    194f,    207, 
285,     326.     328,     347.     349.     35  If. 
355,    358f,    361,    369ff,    382,    397, 
402ff. 
PREDESTINATION.      754,      819,      In- 
troduction. 
PRE.TI^niCE,   90. 
PRESBYTERIAN,    old-line,    13. 
PRESENT,    relation    to    past    and    fu- 
ture,   14,   19,    23. 
perverse    tendency.    14n. 
PRIESTS,    MARRIAGE    OF,    in    Aug. 

Conf..    266f.   vnsslvi 
PRINCIPLE,    THE    CONFESSIONAL, 
prior.      at      and      subsequent      to 
Prnt"nr,ct     9fif. 
silent  interval  of.   108. 
and  the  Creeds,  104ff. 


and  the  Reformation,  109. 

development  of  in  America,  48n. 

manifestations  different,  15. 

rise   of,    93ff. 

and  Melanchthon,  120. 

in     Augsburg     Confession.     117-14.'^. 

in    the    Church,    104-116,    144-155. 

609. 
one   of  conscience,   679. 
the   truth  of   Scripture,    679. 
the   Formula  of   Concord,    667,   679. 
in  Lutheranism,  845. 
and  authority,   874,   877. 
and    American    Protestantism,    875. 
uniting    the    true    invisible    Church, 

877. 
a  balance,   878,   879. 
and   liberality,   879-882. 
how  accepted  in  America,  882,   883. 
cannot  be  varied,   883,  884. 
identical  in  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession    and    in    the    Book    of 
Concord,   884-888. 
properly  upheld,  888-890. 
PRINCIPLE,    THE    MELAN'CHTHOX- 

lAN.      See   Mrlanchthnn. 
PRINCIPLES,    COMMON    OF    FAITH. 
presupposed  in  common  service,   12. 
developed  into  a  system,  13f. 
result    from    reaction    of    Scripture, 

15. 
organized   into   Confessions,  15. 
PROBST,   .lACOB,   383. 
PROGRESS,  91.     See  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. 
PROMISE,  defined,   67n.   68. 
PROTEST,    right  of.   90. 
PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

See  Clitirch  of  England. 
PROTESTANTISM    and    unionism.    2f. 
abiding   unity  of,   10. 
divided.     Introduction, 
principal    extravagance    of,    23. 
and  rivalry,   38. 
modern   view   of,   39. 
and   the    Confessions,    82. 
prospective,  82. 

and   right   of  investigation,   88ff. 
in    Augsburg    Confession,    121,    131. 

133. 
difference  between  systems  of,  136ff. 
and  the  historical  Church,  140. 
and  Scripture,   140. 
Pelagian.   140t. 
semi-Pelagian,    141. 
Augustinian.   140f. 
and  Naumburg  Diet,  558. 
growth  of,  579f. 
break-up    of.    589ff. 
history  of,  from  1530  to  1560,  570- 

608. 
and   Melnnchthonianism,   70fif 
and  Formula  of  Concord,   829f. 
American    Protestantism    and    Book 

of   Concord,    874-890. 
Protestantism  without  Confessional- 
ism     is     a     disintegrative     force, 
877-879. 
issue     between     Protestantism     and 

Romanism.   892. 
most  difficult   problem  of.   903. 
unity    of,    917. 
divisions  of.   921. 
PROTESTANTS,    the    name,    293. 
PROVIDENCE    and    Aug.sburg   Confes- 
sion,  57.   117,   121,   283-435,  521. 
stress  of,  61. 


INDEX. 


959 


PROVIDENCE  and  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, 59;i.  (;(;2.  700-7IG,  829tf. 
ordering  the  development  of  Lu- 
theianism  in  the  new  world,  859, 
860. 
action  of  in  our  confessions  accord- 
ins   to   Miiellcr,    935,    941. 

PRUSSIA,   657,   671. 

PUNISHMENT.    ETERNAL,     in    Aug. 
Conf.,   264. 

Q 

QUAKERS,    30. 

QUEDLINBURG    CONVENTION,    6G3, 

838 
QUEDLINBURG,   671. 
QUENSTEDT.   845. 
QUESTION,   CONFESSIONAL,    1,    7. 

defined.   5ff. 

an  old  problem,   1. 

present  setting  of.  If,  4,   7. 

history  of.   If,   6. 

how  to  be  discussed.   5.   7. 

rightful  solution  of,   4. 

See    Confessional   Princfiple. 

R 

RADICALISM,   24.   848. 
RATIONALISM,   21. 

and   social   contract.,    GO. 

effect   on   Confessions,    155. 

and  Formula  of  Concord,   682. 

and    Lutherani-sra,    83f,    848.    851ff, 

935. 
See  Preface   and  Introduction. 
RATISBON.  585. 
RAVENSBERG.    677. 
REASON  and  the  sects,  18n. 

as  a  source  of  authority,   874,   875, 
877,  879. 
REFORM,   Lutheran  Church  and,  895. 
Reformed  Church  and,  896. 
dangers  of,  897. 
REFORMATION,     llOf,     and     Confes- 
sion.   109,    148. 
first  act  of,  110. 
and  Evangelical  Princes,  572f. 
and  Luther.  573. 
and    Melanchthon,    573. 
and   Christ,    772. 
REFORMED    CHURCHES    and   Nicene 
Creed,    105n. 
and    Lutheran     Church,     136f.     772, 

7Slff,  827,  S43f,   897. 
in  relation  to  society,  137. 
and   Augsburg   Confession,    134. 
the    Reformed    Principle,    897,    898, 

899,    940. 
as  it  works  practically  in  American 

Protestfintism.    93  1. 
Protestantism    and   problems   of   the 
dav.  926. 
REGENSBURG,    550,     580.    583.    672, 

723. 
REINSTEIN,   672 

RELIGION,    saving  truth   of,    revealed 
in   Scripture.   16. 
organized    in   Confession,    16. 
of    to-day,     historical     development, 

14. 
a  serious  matter,   34. 
and  Christian  order,  35. 
RENAN.   72G.   781. 

REPENTANCE,    in   Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, 262. 


RESCRIPT.       THE       IMPERIAL,       of 

Charles   V.,   518.   520,    ^:;s. 

RESERVATION,  in  Confessional  sub- 
scription,  87. 

RESURRECTION,  THE,  in  Augsbur„' 
Confession,  264. 

REUCHLIN,    611f,    617n. 

REUSS-SCHoNBURG  CONFESSION, 
533f. 

REUTLINGEN,  183,  185,  188f.  235f, 
373f,   421f.    672. 

RHEGIUS,    URBANUS,    706,    719. 

RICHARD    OF    ST.    VICTOR,    765. 

RITES,     ECCLESIASTICAL,     in    Aug. 
Conf.,   263. 
in  Formula  of  Concord.  753f. 

RIVALRY,    PROTESTANT,    38. 

ROMAN  CHURCH,    unity   of.   43. 
and  Council  of  Trent,  61n. 
and  Peter,  87. 

Augsburg  Confession   in   its  relation 
to,     122,     123f,     133f,     176,     480, 
710.  747. 
and  Calvinism.  141f. 
issue    between    Romanism    and    Pro- 
testantism,   892. 

ROME.  See  Auyshurg  Confession, 
Apolofiy  to  Auci.  Conf.,  Foi-muhi 
of  Concord.  lAiiher.  Melanchthon. 
Roman  Church,  Pope  Clement 
VII..  etc. 

ROSTOCK,   647.   651  f,   726. 

ROTACH.   29r^.   29^'.   ::i,r,,  Introduction. 

ROTHENBURG,   672. 
RUCKERT,    328. 

Ri-DIGER.     668. 

RUFFINUS.   15Gf. 

RURER,  JOHN.  198.   385. 

RUYSBROCK,    765. 


SAALFELD,   171. 
RABELLIANISM,   107. 
SACRAMENTS,    in    Aug.    Conf.,    256, 
2G0,    263. 
and  the   Church,   261. 
See   also  chap.   XXXV. 
and  chap.   XL.   on   Fellowship, 
and  Lord's  Supper. 
SACRAMENTARIANS.    176,    188,   240. 

344,   419,   533.    646,   7'=c. 
SAINTS.    COMMUNION   OF,    36,    39. 
SALERNO,   ARCHBISHOP  OF,   415. 
SALIG,    293,    374ff,    386n,    395n,   495ff, 

502f.    511f.n,    Preface. 
SALVATION,   16. 

SALZBURG.    CARDINAL   OF,    198. 
SARTORIUS,     82,      S6t,      161f,      6S6f. 

830n. 
SAVOY,  St.  Mary's  in  London,  862. 

constitution  of,   862. 
SAVIGNY.   68. 

SAXON     COUNSEL.     THE.     and     Mel- 
anchthon's    Introduction,    179. 
a   private   confos'--i'"i     T*2. 
and  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  237. 
and   the   Evangelical    Estates,    lS2ff. 
and   Melanchthon,    631. 
SAXON    VISITATION.    626. 
SAXONY,     181,    183f,    209,    234,    238. 
253f,    378,    533,    558,    579f,    607, 
64  6.    649.    670ff,    715,    "^-^'l,    S^Q. 
Elector     Augustus     of.     534f,     537, 
551ff,    639f.    650,    653ff,   666.    669, 
684.    712ff,    724.    7'^6.   S36ff. 
Duke    Maurice    of,    585,    590.    592, 
819n. 


960 


IN  VEX. 


SAXONY,    Christian    I    of,    839. 
Christian   II   of,   838f. 
Frederick   William   of,    839. 
George  of,   176,   195,   579. 
Henry  of,   579. 

Elector   John   of.      See   Elector. 
John    Frederick    of,    180,    230,    301, 
358,    422,    453,    45«f,    514,    525f, 
532,    545ff,    550,    o521f,    572,   56U, 
585,    590,    646.    668,    728. 
SAVONAROLA,    142n. 
SCH.EFFER,    C.    F.,    684,    737,    852n, 

866,    886-888. 
SCHAFF,    PHILIP,    IH.'^..    301  n.    .^.72f, 
575n,   581,   582n,    590,   591f,   597, 
eiOn,   636,    7US,    767f,    785n,    7  88, 
895. 
"Creeds   of  Christendom."   Preface, 
error  of,  in   Creeds  of  Christendom. 

6n. 
on    solution     of    Lutheran     Cjnfes- 

sional  question,  4. 
on  Creeds.   18n,  55.  96,  106f. 
on    Lutheran     Confession     and     doc- 
trine, 56,  800f,  803ff. 
on  the   Filioque  and  Schism,   lO^T. 
on  Augsburg  Confession,  118,  120n, 

135f,   749. 
on  doctrinal  difference  between  Lu- 

theranism    and    Reform.    JoGf. 
on  Formula  of  Concord,  593n,  601u, 

690.   703,   735,   749.   824f. 
on  polemics  and  irenics,  922. 
on    Synergism.    600. 
definition  of  Confession,   743f. 
on  Unionism,   578f,  840ff. 
on  Melanchthon.  880. 
on  disowning  the   Formula.   SS2. 
on      American      Melanchthonianism, 
883 
SCHEPPER,    CORNELIUS,    186,    200, 

402,    449. 
SCHLEIZ.    Introduction. 
SCHLESWIG,   677. 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.    724. 
SCHLEIERMACHER.    853. 
SCHMID.    S46f,   849f. 
SCHMALKALD     ARTICLES.     63,     74, 
357,    532f.    543,    554ft,    580,    644f, 
649,     658.     675,     678,     684,     690, 
710,  749,  702,  776.  781,  817,  835. 
Diet   of,    526.    528.   Introdui  tion. 
League,    526f.    571f,    576,    580,    585, 

643.    892.    Introduction. 
war,  585,   723. 
SCHMIDT,   74. 

See  chap.  XXXVIT. 
SCHMUCKER.  S.  S..  840,  846. 

attempt    to    introduce    new    Confes- 
sion.   694f. 
SCHNEPF,   ED..  358,  375,  487f,  492ff, 

501. 
SCHOLASTICISM   defined,   109. 
SCHoNnURG,   672. 

SCHORNBAUM,   KARL,  his   discovery 
of   and   manuscript   of   the    Augs- 
burg Confes.sion.   225f. 
SCHUBERT    v..   Introduction. 
SCHWABACH    ARTICLES,    114,    173, 
177,     191.     195.     236,     309f,     323, 
326,     345.     352,     366,     544,     565, 
713.    794 
SCHWARZBURG,    672. 
SCHWEINFURT,    672. 
SCHWENKFELDT,    588,   760f,    765. 
SCIENCE   and   nature,    15f. 


SCRIPTURE.      See    Bible,    Word,    the 
main  consideration,  8. 
and  Confession,   13f,  16,  30. 
anil  Creed,   31. 
and  historical  order,   22. 
and  condemnation,  48ft. 
reactions   of  on   men,    14. 
in    Dure    Proiestautism,    140. 
and"  Luther,   163f,   167,   791. 
original    manuscripts    of,    541. 
and  the  Confessional  Principle,  679, 

749. 
and       the      Lutheran       Confessions, 

749ft. 
as  a  .source  of  authority,  874,  87b- 
879. 
SECK15ND0RF.   399.    ^A^i. 
SECTARIANISM  and  the  true  Church, 
38. 
Sectarians,   754,   911. 
SECTS  and  Creeds,  18n. 

Quaker,    30. 
SEEBERG.   lOlf,   142n.   600,   606,  625, 
690,   093f,   709f.   735,   744n,   794n, 
soon,    814n,    823f,    841,    895. 
SBISS,   87,   684. 

SELNECKER,     533.     537.     547,     597, 
601,  647,  650,  656,  658,  669,  724, 
726,   834,   837. 
SEMLER.  851  f. 
SEMINARY,   THEOLOGICAL,   purpose 

of,  76. 
SENTIMENT,   40. 
SERMON   ON   THE   MOUNT,   924. 
SKRVETUS,    42,    532,    705. 
SERVICE    and    law.    80. 
SERVICE,    COMMON,    how    and    why 
formulated,    12f. 
historical  aspect,   14. 
adapted   to  occasion,   15. 
and  Apostles'  Creed,   104. 
SIMPLICITY,    29,    31. 
SIN,   21. 

Augsburg   Confession   on.   265. 
"  SIX   SERMONS,"    039,    650ff,   724. 
SOCIALISM,    origin   of,    09. 
modern,   69. 
ecclesiastical,    09. 
SOCIETY,  church  and  laws  of,  924. 
church  and.  925. 

social    problems    and    the    Lutheran 
Confession.  927,    Prefai  e. 
SORBONNE,   626. 

SPALATIN,    GEORGE.    120,    171,    184, 
207,   224,    244ff,    329ff,    399f,    453, 
510,    o54f,    615f. 
SPENER,    135,   154,  840f. 
SPENGLER,      LAZARUS,      499,      501, 

516,   520. 
SPIRES,  Diets  at.  168,  240,  291f,  292, 
303,     309,     322,     338,     407,     419, 
461,   627,  631,   634f. 
Prote.st  at,  293,  309,  635. 
SPIRES,    676. 

SPIR.IT,    HOLY.      See   Holy   Ghost. 
STANCAR,    532.   588,   705,   761. 
STANLEY,      DEAN,      on      Athanasian 

Creed,    107. 
STATE,  and  Lutheran  Church,   4Sii. 
a   spiritual    fact,    69. 
not    based    on    contract     69. 
Church  and  State  in  Augsburg  Con- 
fession.   129.    130.    276ff. 
in  Augsburg  Confession.   263f. 
not   in    Formula   of   Concord.    819. 
relation  between  State  and  Church, 
896. 


INDEX 


961 


STATE    the,    and   education,    923. 
and  problems  of  the  day,  925. 
corruption   of,    926. 
sphere     of     a.s     distinguished     from 

Home  and  Church,    927. 
the    principal    mode    of    its    activity, 
928. 
STEIERMARK,    672. 
STCEVEK,   JOHN   CASPAR.    S61.    941). 
STRASBURG,    182,    295,    576,    676. 
STRIGEL,    597,    600. 
STUMP,   J.,   585,  634f. 
STURM,   JACOB,    195,   198. 
STUTTGART,    652,    723. 
"  STUTTGART  THEOLOGIANS'  CON- 
FESSION,"  648. 
SUBSCRIPTION,    56. 
format,   6n,   7. 
different   forms   of,    88n. 
two  kinds  differentiated,  6ii. 
what    is    involved    in    an    ex    animo 
subscription,    888,    890. 
SULZBACH,   671. 
SUPERNATURALISTS,    614. 
SWAB.IAN     CONCORDIA,     639,     652f, 

833f. 
3WABIAN-SAX0.N       CONCORDIA, 

653ff,    714. 
SWEDEN     and     Unaltered     Augsburg 
Confession,    862.        .  ' ,     .    ,     ^ 
Formula  and  Book  of.Concor<!,  €72, 

862,  864.  -     •     ■  . 

and    the    colony    on    the    Delaware, 

863,  864. 
SWEDENBORG.   765.  ..,,., 
SWISS,     188,     239,     295ff:   '3i?8*    4,7.4, 

575f.  .    ,      ,    . 

SYMBOL,    significance   of,    72. 
purpose   of,    62ff. 
the  implied   agreements.    66. 
not     a     contract,     69.      See     A'jf-i^e- 

moit.    Contract.  -  '  ' 

how    obligatory    upon    the    minister, 

86. 
confessional    use   of   word,    69,    15G- 

162. 
definition   of,    65f,    72f,    146,    161. 
and   Church's   Confessions,    146. 
meaning  of,   157. 

its  use  IJefore  the  Reformation.  156f. 
Its    use    in   the   Reformation,    157f. 
earliest    appearance    in    the    Refor- 
mation,   157. 
origin   of   the   term,    156. 
use   in   the   Book   of  Concord,    158. 
defined     in     Formula     of     Concord, 

159,   160. 
use     in     Symbolical     Books     of    the 

Church,    161. 
and  Symbolical  writings,   161. 
SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS,    objectors    to, 

27ff. 
use  of  "  Symbol  "  in  Lutheran.  161. 
first    use    of    in    Lutheran    Church, 

605. 

use  of  term,    73,    74. 

SYMBOLICS,   defined.    72. 

development    of.    151ff. 

name,  bv  whom   given,  153. 

SYNERGISM,     597,     600f,     623,     677, 

•         682,    708,    752f,    827. 


TAUFBfTCHLEIN    AND    TRAUBfJCH- 

LEIN,   111,   836f. 
TEACHER,  main  function  of,  77. 


and  the  Confession,  43,  77. 

requisites    of,    84. 

and  loyalty,  85. 
TE   DEUM,    107,    157,    834. 
TECKLENBURG,   677. 
TERTULLIAN,    101,    789. 
TESTAMENT,     OLD,     and    condemna- 
tion. 4911. 
TESTIMONY,   validity   of,    54. 

and  the  truth,  69. 

individual,  93ff. 

formal,  94. 

documentary,    94. 
TEXT  (Documentary,  of  Scripture  and 

Confessions)    defined.    541. 
THEOPHYLACT,    531,    556,    813. 
THESES,    NINETY-FIVE,    110,    121f. 
THIRTY   YEARS'    WAiC,   4b0,   S„o. 
THOMAS,    95. 

THOMASIUS,    677f,    720f,    731,    758n, 
7ein,   849. 

quoted   by  Schaffer,   887,   888. 
THURINGIA,   650,  671. 
TIEPOLO.      See     Venice,    AvibassadoT 

of. 
TIMANN,  597. 
TOLERATION,    -905,      906,      911-914. 

and   doctrine,    38. 

and  Scripture,  50. 
TOUaAU,    139f,    303,    320,    322,    713, 

715     718 
TORCAU   ARTICLES,    322f. 

and  Augsburg  Confession,  113,  170, 
223f.    229,    242,    335f,    348,    5t.5. 

ai?d    MeiancLthon,    172f,    322,    336, 
335f. 

ind  Lrther.   191,   249,   322. 
TORGAU   BOOK,    640,   656ff,    715. 
TRACTATUS  DE  POTESTATE 

PAP;^,,527. 
TRADITION,    18n,    101,    476. 
TJ^EMT,  COUNCIL  OF,  531,  535,  540. 
551,  558,  590,  7U4,  705,  725,  735, 
833 
TRINITY,    DOCTRINE    OF,    30,    32. 

in  Augs.   Conf.,  259. 
TRI-THEISM,   107. 
TRUTH,  unorganized  in  nature,   15. 

and  science,   16. 

unsystematized  in  Scripture,  16. 

and   faith,    29. 

approximations  and  counterfeits,  38. 

and   controversy,    41. 

and  Confession,   16,   37,   54. 

and  Church,  54. 

and    testimony,    69,    916,    937. 

Carlyle  on,   912. 
TSCHACKERT.  on    Confessional  Prin- 
ciple,   Introduction. 

on    Melanchthon,    Introduction. 

on    Formula    of    Concord,    Introduc- 
tion. 

Critical  Text  of,  Introduction. 

Tubingen,  eii,  638,  648,  652,  838. 

TULLOCH,   J..    106n,   109f. 
TYRANNY  and  Lutheranism,  42. 


U 


"UBIQUITY,"     603,     605,     648,     780, 

783.  786,  800ff,  Introduction. 
ULM,   182,  295,  672. 
UNION,  4. 

and  Lutheran  Church,  3f. 

and  Protestantism,  3. 

and   unity  differentiated,   36. 


9G2 


INDE  X 


UNION.      The   real    union    of   Christ's 

Church,    907. 
UNIONISM   defined,    2,    36. 

and  compromise,  2,   4,  36. 

history  of,   2. 

Delitzsch's  and  other  proposals  of, 
2. 

illegitimate.    36. 

in  Melanchthon,  119f,  134,  438, 
488,  492,  574ff,  584,  588f,  615, 
620,   629,   630ff. 

on  basis  of  Augsburg  Confession, 
135f. 

and   Charles   V.,   287f. 

fallacies    in   Schaff's,    578f,    840ff. 

and   Formula   of   Concord,    824ff. 
UNITARIANISM,    30. 
UNITIES,  CHRISTIAN,  and  unity,  77. 
UNITY,    defined,    6n. 

invisible,    36. 

basis  of,   44. 

requisites  of,   10,   84. 

and   different   churches,    36. 

and    Lutheran    Church,    43. 

and   confessions,    77. 

in   necessary   things,    922. 
UNIVERSITY,    Leipzig,    580. 

Jena,   643. 

Wittenberg,    643. 

Rostock,    726. 
UPSALA,    672. 

See  Introduction. 
URSINUS,   640,   681. 
USINGEN    (Catholic  theologian),   196, 
198. 

V 

VALDftS.      ALPIIONSO.      186,      192ff, 

201,    203ff,   211ff,    215,   217,   219f. 

VALENTINE,    M.,   752,   755,   785,   803, 

805f.   849. 
VALIDITY  in  witness.  54. 

depends  on   Scripture,   55,    61. 
legal  aspect  of,   55. 
and  testimony,  62. 
and   Confessional   element,   76. 
VARIATA   AND   VARIANT,   difference 

between,    541. 
VARIATA,    see   Iiitnuluctioii. 
VARIATA      OF      AUG.      CONF.        See 
Aur/sb uifi    Confession. 
its    right    is    historical,    not    actual, 
883,    884,    900. 
VENICE,     AMBASSADOR     OF      (Tie- 
polo),    intercourse   with   Melanch- 
thon.   216f,    49G. 
VISITATION.    ARTICLES    OF.    838f. 
VOGLER,     CHANCELLOR,     183,     185, 
193,     207,     210,     236,     239,     245. 
374.    379,    391.    399.    10:!.    500. 
v^OGT,    205 f. 

VOW,    55,    monastic,    in    Aug.    Conf., 
263,    272ff. 

W 

WARFIELD.    R..    431f. 

WEBER,    223.    337f.    540,    546ff,    561f. 

564,    567ff.    726ff,    Preface. 
■UTi:iDNER,   851. 
WEISSENBURG,    522. 
WEIMAR,     229,    324.    557,    606,    645. 

671. 
WESTPHAL,  J.,  597,  599,  651. 


WESTPHALIA,    PEACE    OF,    559. 
WIEDEBRAM,   668. 
WHATELY,    ARCHB.ISHOP,    on    tole- 
rance, 912. 
WIGAND,    597,    646,    657. 
WILL,     FREEDOM    OF,     in    Augsburg 
Confession,    264. 
in  Formula  of  Concord,  752,  755. 
WINDSHEIM,    522. 
WIMPFEN,    672. 
WIMPINA,    346,    434,   491. 
WiINDSCHIED,    67. 
WINER,   154. 

WITTENBERG,  170f,  322,  324,  333, 
381,  388,  507,  523,  529,  534, 
552,  577,  581,  584f,  597,  603. 
eiOff,  635,  642f,  G49f.  701,  r.5, 
724,  833. 
Concord,    2,    526ff,    577ff,    598,    632, 

794. 
Reformation,  585. 
WITNESS,     54,     916,     929,     937,     938, 
939. 
-bearing,    20f. 
WOHLAU,   676. 
WOLFENBUTTEL,    647. 
WORD    OP    GOD.      See    Bible,    Scrip- 
ture. 
in  Scripture  and  Creed.   31. 
and    Apostolic    Church,    32. 
pfter    completion    of    Canon,    32. 
and  human  e.xplanation  of,   33. 
and   Lutheran   Confession,   33. 
and   the   Church.    139,   261,    Preface, 
'n   Aug.   Conf.,   260. 
in  •FoFmula  of  Concord,   752,  826. 
as    testified    to    in    the    Confessions. 
876.    877,    936. 
WORMS,    288ff,    302f,    329,    371,    373. 
4l6f,     420,    462,     478,     518,     580, 
■   5S2f,    .''!84,    634,    645,    676,    701. 
Carlyh  en   Luther  at  Diet  of,   912- 
914. 
WORMS     COLLOQUIUM,     530-551. 
WiJRTEMBERG.    5!  9.    639,    648.    653, 
655,   671,    715,   723. 
Duke   Christopher   of.    551ff,    648. 
Duke  Ludwig  of,   654. 


Y 


YOUNG      MENS      CHRISTIAN      AS- 
SOCIATION,   3. 


ZEALOT,    danger   of,    41. 

ZERBST,    649. 

ZINZENDORF,    840f,    867. 

ZOCKLER,   O..    133. 

ZWEIBRC'CKEN,    673,    677. 

ZWILLING,    412. 

ZliTCHEM,    VIGLIUS,    536f. 

ZWICKAU,    613,    622. 

ZWINGLI,  127,  142,  173,  29'7.  307f, 
338,  357,  380,  481,  512,  572. 
628,  632.  644,  765.  767,  769, 
781f,  788,  790,  792ff,  809,  814, 
827,   840.    842,    935. 

ZWINGLIANS,  119.  185,  197f,  235, 
237f,  244,  246,  301,  306,  359, 
392,  403,  433,  584,  621,  628, 
631f,    675,    681,    706,    716. 


This  book  is  due  two  weeks  from  the  last  date  stamped 
below,  and  if  not  returned  at  or  before  that  time  a  fine  of 
five  cents  a  day  will  be  incurred. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0035519843 


33S 


-Sch^^ 


338.  W 


Sohmauk 

The  confessional  principle  and 

the  confessions  of  the  Lutheran 
— church 


CI 


BRiHLE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


